GOYEENMENT OE INDIA
DEPARTMEDfT OF ARCHAEOLOG-Y
CENTRAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL
LIBRARY
■GijAsr
AJiSuoa _ ,
2>l(^
Call No.
D.a.A. 79.
•' < -V '»»•»
\ 'f *5
-'•W;A .
AMERICAN ORIENTAL SERIES
VOLUME 3
THE PANCHATANTRA RECONSTRUCTED
VOLUME 2
AMERICAN ORIENTAft
VOLUME 3
COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS
E. WASHBURN HOPKINS
Chairman
CHARLES a TORREY
and
EEIANKLIN EDGESTON MAX L. MAEQOLIS
StB cut BdUon ’of ifiA ^oumcd
PUBLISHED BY THE
^Itncritari <|)riEntal Jiodetp
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, U. 8. A.
19S4
THE PANCHATANTRA
RECONSTRUCTED
AN ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH THE LOST ORIGINAL, SANSKRIT TMST
OP THE MOST FAMOUS OF INDIAN STORY- COLLECTIONS ON
THE BASIS OF THE PRINCIPAL EXTANT VERSIONS
€rific#I ^jjareftts, ^nfrohatfintt, Sransfaffott
By franklin EDGERTON
Assistant Professor of Sanskrit in the
University of Pennsylvania
VOLUME 2
? HUMPHREY MILFORD
OXFORD^ UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON iDINBURGH GLASGOW TORONTO
MELBOURNE CAPE TOWN BOMBAY CALCUTTA
BT ABOLF HOBZHAOSEN. VIENNA, AUSTRIA
k'
I
'■’i V fS’o
'S
m’
f%.
t
.0
i .
fw
r
V
CONTENTS OP VOLUME 11
iNTEOBUOTIOlSr
Page
Chapter I. Purpose and Results of this Book 3
The Paficatantra in world literature 3
The Paficatantra in India 3
Object of this book, contrasted with previous studies 4
What was the original Paficatantra? 4
Interest of this investigation 6
Method employed in the reconstruction 6
Primary results of this investigation 8
Incidental results of this investigation 9
Extent of divergence from Hertel’s results 10
Chapter 11. The Materials*^^ 12
Paficatantra versions uspd' in the reconstruction 12
The Tantrakhyayika (abbreviated T). . . .' 12
Extent to which the Tantrakhyayika preserves the original text . . 13
Secondary additions in the Tantrakhyayika 13
HertePs views of the Tantrakhyayika 14
The Tantrakhyayika has no privileged position among Paficatantra
versions 16
The Southern Paficatantra (abbreviated SP) 17
Extent to which the Southern Paficatantra preserves the original text 18
Secondary additions in the Southern Paficatantra 19
The Jfepalese Paficatantra (abbreviated N) 19
The Hitopade§a (abbreviated H): its origin 20
Greneral plan of the Hitopadefia 21
Extent to which the HitopadeiSa preserves the original text .... 22
Secondary additions in the HitopadeSa 22
The Paficatantra’s position in the ByhatkathS 28
Eifect of language and versification on the Brhatkatha versions . . 23
K§emendra (abbreviated K§) 24
Somadeva (abbreviated So) 26
The so-called textus simplicior *’ (abbreviated Spl) 27
VI
Pagre
General plan of Siraplicior
Extent to which Simplicior preserves the original text 29
Secondary additions in Simplicior 30
Peirp-abhadra (abbreviated Pn) . 30
General plan of Parpabhadra: his two main sources, TantrakhySyika
and Simplicior 31
The “ Ur-Tan trakhyayika,” source of the “ Ur-Simplicior ” and the
Tantrakhyayika . * 36
Piirnabhadra’s other source or sources 37
Value of Pflrpabhadra for the reconstruction 38
Extent to which Purnabhadra preserves the original text 39
Secondary additions in PQr^iabhadra 39
The Pahlavi translation (abbreviated Pa) 40
Immediate offshoots of the Pahlavi 41
Offshoots of the Pahlavi thru the Arabic ‘ 43
Use made of the Pahlavi versions in the present work 44
Extent to which the Pahlavi preserves the original text 46
Secondary additions in the Pahlavi 46
Table showing interrelations of older Paficatanfera versions 48
Chapter III. Methods employed in the Reconstruction 49
Purpose of this chapter . . * 49
Three ways of proving laecondary interrelationship 49
Versions which are not secondarily interrelated 62
How to determine original matter? 62
All versions point to a definite literary archetype 53
1. Features common to ^1 versions must he original 65
2. Omission of fctnres in Hitopadela and the Byha^atha versions
not significant 66
3: Very minor features common to a smaller number of independent
versions are not necessmtly original 56
4. More important features common to several independent versions;
probability of originality tends to vary with importance and
closeness of correspondence 57
6. Entire stories common to several independent versions at the same
place are almost certainly original . . i 68
6. Summary of methods by which originality is determined .... 60
7. Features occurring only in a single stream of tradition ..... 60
Our methods are verified inductively and pragmatically, and are not
based cn mere abstract consideratioDs 62
Critique of HertePs method . . ; 64
Chapter IV. Secondary Interrelationships of Various Versions 68
Common archetype of the Old Syriac and the Arabic 68
Common archetype of Soraadeva and Ksemendra 69
The ‘"Ur-SP,” archetype of 8P, K, and H 69
The “ Ur-N, ” the pcondary archetype of N and H 69
K^emendra used a TantrSIkhylyika manuscript 70
Vll
Page
The “ Ur-Simplicior, ” source of our Simplicior, and one of the main
sources of PCLriiabhadra 70
Duplications in Pflrriabhadra, due to his use of two sources. ... 71
The “ Ur-Tan trSkhyayika,” archetype of Tantrakhyayika and the
“ Ur-Simplicior ” 72
Secondary stories inserted in “ Ur-Tan trSkhyayika” and found only
in its descendants ; . 73
1. The Blue Jackal. 74
2. Jackal outwits Camel and Lion 76
3. Weaver Somilaka 76
4. Talking Cave 77
6. Potter as Warrior 78
6. The Clever Hansa 79
7. Other stories which may possibly have been found in the
Ur-Tan trakhyayika 79
Verbal correspondences between TantrakhySyika and Simplicior and
Piirnabhadra 79
Clearly secondary correspondences in detail between Tantrakhyayika
and Simplicior (and Pdri^-abhadra) 80
1. Reconstruction 1 §§ 18 — 22, including vss 4, 6 . , . . , . . 80
2. Reconstruction I §§ 29, SO 84
3. Reconstruction III vs 99 ... 85
4. Reconstruction in § 64 86
6. Reconstruction III §§ 71, 72 ... 87
6. Reconstruction II § 233 87
7. Minor and miscellaneous agreements of T and Spl 88
Chapter V. Critique of HertePs Views of Interrelationship of Versions , 89
General remarks on Hertel’s views of the Paflcatantra versions , . 89
Points in HertePs genealogical table of versions which this chapter
will try to disprove . 90
HertePs proofs are insufficient even if they were individually sound 91
These theories are not only unproved but unprovable 92
The supposed archetype “ t ” 92
What is meant by this “t”? 92
1. prat^&yUo^ T A 149 ; ” Reconstruction II § 62 . 93
2. The verso T H. 87 ; Reconstruction II vs 63 , 94
3. hlhqjam.a^^ T p. 60, 1. 9; Reconstruction I§ 570 ....... 96
4. The laree-oracle, T p. 67, 1. 16fif.; Reconstruction I § 647 . . 97
6. The crocodile and the ape, T “ A 286; ” Reconstruction IV § 36 98
6. The verse T IH. 125; Reconstruction III vs 107 98
7. The verse T L 174; Reconstruction I vs 163 98
Summary and conclusion regarding “ t 99
The supposed archetype “ K ” . * . . 101
What is meant by the archetype K . 101
1. The ape and the crocodile, Book IV, frame; particularly T
“A 286, ” Reconstruction IV § 36 . . 102
VUl
Page
% The verse T 11. 90 j Reconstruction n vs 55 105
8. The verse T II. 25; Reconstruction U vs 15 106
4- Hnskt or unhuskt sesame? Story II. 2 106
5. Other evidence for “ K ” in Hertel, Tantr. Einl. p. 31 , . . , 108
6. The verse T L 19; Reconstruction I vs 21 109
7. The verse T II. 61; Reconstruction II vs 36 110
8. End of Book IV Ill
9. The verse SP HI. 32; Reconstruction HI vs 44, and preceding
prose Ill
Summary and conclusion as to the “archetype K” 116
The supposed archetype “N-W” 117
What is meant by the supposed archetype “N-W”? 117
1. The sesame story again 117
2. Story of Brahman and Rogues, III. 5 118
Summary and conclusion 119
Relations of TantrSkhyayika a and p, and of the mss. of T .... 120
Hertel’s view that T a is more original than p 120
The present writer's views 120
Alleged interpolations in T p from a “ K ” codex 121
Minor variations in the language of T a and p 123
Supposed “attempted corrections”, in TP, of T« readings . . . 124
The manuscripts of TantrUchyayika 125
Summary and conclusion 126
Chapter VI. Examples of Method of Reconstruction: Original and
Unoriginal Agreements. . . ‘ 128
Purpose of ihis chapter 128
Reconstruction of Book I, %% 34 — 48, and vss 7 — 23 129
Original and unoriginal agreements 151
Unoriginal agreements between H and Pa 151
between H and Jif. 162
between SP and Jn 152
between P? and K? 152
between T and SP 152
Chapter VIL Examples of Method of Reconstruction, continued: Establish-
ment of Original by Agreements of Other Texts than Tantra-
khylyika 154
Purpose of this chapter 154
Agreements of Ur-SP, Br, Jn, and Pa, against T 156
of Ur-SP, Jn, and Pa 159
of Ur-SP, Jn, and So or K§ 162
of Ur-SP, Pa, and So or K§, against T (and Jn) . . . 163
of Pa, Jn, and So or 164
of Ur-SP and both Jn versions, against T . , . . . . 166
of Ur-SP and Spl, against T (and Pn) 167
of Ur-SP and Pi^, against T (and Spl) 168
of Ur-SP and Pa 169
IX
Pago
Agreements of Ur-SP and So or 171
of Pa and Jn 171
of Pa and So or K§ 174
of Ju and So or 174
Other unoriginal features in Tantrakhyayika 175
Insertions in Tantrakhylyika 177
Chapter VIII. The Original Work as Eevealed by the Reconstruction. 181
Purpose of this chapter 181
Kame of the original work 181
Meaning of the name . . . . . 181
Date of the original work 182
Authorship of the original work 182
Home of the original work 183
Language of the original work 184
Character of the original work as a political textbook 186
Story-contents of the original: stories included by me but excluded
or doubted by Hertel . 186
Conspectus op Stories of the Original 189
Conspectus op Text-units op the Original 192
Chapter IX. Critical Notes on the Text of the Tantrakhylyika .... 259
Purpose of this chapter , . . . 269
Emendations in the text of Tantrakhylyika 269
Unfortunate emendations made by Hertel in the text of TantrS-
khyayika 260
Unfortunate choices made by Hertel between variant manuscript
readings in the text of Tantrakhyayika 263
Translation
Kathamukha or Introductory Section 271
First Book: The Separation of Friends, or, The Lion and the Bull , . 274
Story 1 : Ape and Wedge 277
Story 2: Jackal and Drum 284
Story 3 a: Monk and SMndler . , . , 288
Story 3 b : Earns and Jackal 288'
Story Sc: Cuckold Weaver and Bawd 289
Story 4: Crows and Serpent 294
Story 5: Heron and Crab 294
Story 6: Lion and Hare 296
Story 7 : Louse and Flea 602
Story 8: Lion’s Retainers and Camel #08
Story 9: Strandbirds and Sea 812
Story 10: Oeese and Tortoise #18
Story 11: Forethot, Ready- wit, and Come- what- will , #14
Story 12: Ape, Glow-worm, and Bird . #20
EdgeriiOii, Pafic&bantra IL . ^
X
Page
Story 18: Evil-wit and Honest-wit . . , . 822
Story H: Herons, Snake, and Mongoose 328
Story 15: Iron-eating Mice 325
Second Book: Tke Winning of Friends, or, The Dove, Crow, Mouse,
Tortoise, and Deer 329
Story 1: Mouse and Tw-o Monks 338
Story 2: Huskt for Hnskt Sesame. 339
Story 3: Too Greedy Jackal 340
Story 4: Deer’s Former Captivity 352
Tbird Book; War and Peace, or, The Crows and the Owls 358
Story 1; Ass in Panther’s Skin 364
Story 2; Birds Elect Bang 364
Story 8: Elephant, Hares, and Moon 365
Story 4: Cat, Partridge, and Hare 369
Story 5: Brahman and Eognes 372
Story 6: Old Man, Young Wife, and Thief 376
Story 7: Brahman, Thief, and Ogre 377
Story 8: Cuckold Carpenter 378
Story 9: Monse*Maiden 380
Story 10; Progs Bide Serpent 386
Pourth Book: The Loss of One’s Gettings, or, The Ape and the Crocodile 393
Story 1: Ass without Heart and Ears 398
Fifth Book: Hasty Action, or, The Brahman and the Mongoose . . , 401
Story 1; Brahman who Bnilt Air- castles 401
Story 2: Barker who BuHed the Monks 404
Addenda et Corrigenda 406
Eclgerton, Pancatontra. XL
1
CHAPTER I
PURPOSE AND RESULTS OF THIS BOOK
The Pancatantra in world literature. — No other work of Hindu
literature has played so important a part in the literature of the
world as the Sanskrit story-collection called the Pancatantra.
Indeed, the statement has been made^ that no book except the
Bible has enjoyed such an extensive circulation in the world as
a whole. This may be — I think it probably is — an exaggeration.
Yet perhaps it is easier to underestimate than to overestimate
the spread of the Pancatantra. In Professor Johannes Herts’s
book on the subject^ there are recorded over two hundred
different versions known to exist in more than fifty languages;
and about three-fourths of these languages are extra-Indian.
As early as the eleventh century the work reacht Europe, and
before 1600 it existed in Greek, Latin, Spanish, Italian, German,
English^ Old Slavonic, Czech, ^ and perhaps other Slavonic lan-
guages. Its range has extended from Java to Iceland.
The Pahcatantra in India. — Nor has this famous work been
without honor in its own country. No other collection of stories
has been so popular thruout the length and breadtli of India,
It has been workt over again and again, expanded, abstracted,
turned into verse, retold in prose, translated into medieval and
modem vernaculars, and retranslated into Sanskrit. And most
of the stories contained in it have “ gone down into the folk*
lore of the story-loving Hindus, whence they reappear in tike
^ According to Winternitz, DLZ, SI (1910), 2698; not, however, with hh
endorsement.
® Das Puiicaiavira^ ^eim GeschichU nnd smne Verhrmimig\ ILeipzig and
Berlin, 1914. (Abbreviated! “ Hartel, See the Indices to this
I, p. 451f.
® In several of the languages named, a number of different versions existed
at that early date.
4 Chapter I; Purpose and results of this book
collections of or^l tales gathered by onodern students of folk-
stories.^
Object of this book, contrasted with previous studies.— It is
not my purpose at present to trace the history of the Panca-
tantra or its stories, as they appear in successive works of
literature or in folklore. This eithe;r has been done, or is being
done, by others.^' The task I am undertaking is rather the re-
verse: to follow back the streams of PaScatantra tradition in
the hope of finding their source. For my present purpose, the
contents of the versions of the Pancatantra are of interest only
in so far as they may throw light on the ultimate source of
them all.
What was the original Pancatantra? — Even a superficial exa-
mination of the existing Pancatantra versions indicates with
tolerable certainty that they all go back to a book of fables
and stories consisting of five books or sections and a brief
introduction. Tbe, introduction provides tbe frame ” or setting,
and at the same time suggests what must have been to tbe
author’s mind the key-note of .the whole work: it was supposed
to be a kind of Fiirstempiegel or Mirror for Magistrates^ teach-
ing worldly wisdom to princes, by entertaining examples, as
well as by cleverly phrased precepts, The precepts are princi-
pally found ill: the vrerses which are. abnudp.% scattered thru
most parts; of the work. The example consist in the stories
themselves, which are jhJld mainly in prose. Each of the five
sections or books ” forms a dramatic unit in itself, and all
five are, as I said, set into the Introduction as a frame. In
the Introduction a wise brahman undertakes to enlighten three
ignorant princes. He does so by narrating to them, one after
another, the five books of tbe Pancatantra. Each of tlie five
books contains not only a primary story,* which we call the
“frame-story,” but also at least one,, and usually several,
^‘emboxt” stories; that is, stories represented as told by one
character in the frame-story to another. Sometimes tliere is a
double “ emboxment a character in an “ emboxt ” story tells
* See W, hfonsnan Brown, Tbe Pancatantra in Modern Indian Folklore,”
JAOS, 39. 1 flP. This subject is not included in HertePs Pancatant)’(L, mentioned
in note 3 above.
^ See notes 2 and 4 above.
Wliat was tlie original raiicatantra?
5
a story to another character, (In some of the late versions of
the Pahcatantra this process was carried even further, so that
we have a sort of “Chinese nest” of stories.) Most of the
stories are beast-fables, that is their principal actors are animals
deckt out with human properties : but a number of them have
only human characters, while some have both men and animals,
and even — tho rarely — gods and other supernatural beings. The
stories are in general very well told and of a high artistic qua-
lity. Unevennesses and inconsistencies appear not infrequently
in all of the existing versions, to be sure. But I hope to be
able to show that most of them (not quite all) are secondary,
and due to the fact that the tales tend to deteriorate with re-
telling. Most of the stories remain true to the key-note of the
hook, its Machiavellian character; they are generally unmoral,
and at times positively immoral, in the political lessons they
inculcate. The story-teller and the political strategist are com-
bined in the personality of the author, and on the whole combined
very successfully. Sometimes one gets the upper liand, sometimes
the other. There are passages which become tiresomely tech-
nical in their expatiations on policy. More numerous, it seems
to me (and fortunately so, from our point of view), are the
passages in which the author as a master of narrative forgets
his protest practical purpose and loses himself in the joy of
telling a rattling good story.® In general, however, the two
things are very skilfully united, so that a story which is clever
in itself, as a story, also becomes an apt illustration of a poli-
tical maxim.
Interest of this investigation. — Such, very briefly, seems to
have been the original Pancatantra. If tlie genuine and pri*^
mitive text of it were known to us ; or if we were in possession
of a text which could be called a reasonably close approximation
to it; then this book would be unnecessary, or at least less
necessary. Unfortunately we have neither of tiiese things; cer-
tainly not tlie original Pancatantra, and in my opimon--»
opinion which I hope to prove in the course of this
® On this point I do not agree with Herfeel, who tbinka th4t dee
contained no storj that did not teach a definite political
aequently rejects all stories in which he cannot find any. I shall return to
this suhjeet later^ see page 77, riot0’2j page 1§6.
6
Chapter I: Purpose and results of this book
reasonably close approximation to it. If this be true, and if
there is any possibility of reconstructing the lost original with
reasonable accuracy and confidence, the task would seem worth
the pains. If any study in literary genetics has interest or value^
surely it must be worth while to recreate the original form of
a work that has enjoyed such enormous popularity in so many
different times and lands.
Method employed in. the reconstruction. — My method may be
briefly described as follows. I first selected the yersions of the
Pancatantra which, on the basis of previous studies (especially
Hertel’s), could be assumed to contain all, or at least practi-
cally all, the evidence that could be used in reconstructing
the original Pancatantra.'^ All other known versions can be
practically excluded from consideration, since they are known
to be almost or quite completely dependent on one or another
of tliese versions; hence whatever they have of -the original
may in general be assumed to come from one of these older
and more original versions.®
Next, I undertook a very minute comparison of all the ma-
terials found in each of these versions in so far as they cor-
respond in meaning to materials found in any of the others.
For this purpose I divided the texts into the . smallest possible
units, each unit consisting^ as a rnte, in the ease of the San-
skrit versions, of a single Stanka or prose sentence, — sometimes
of a part pf a sentence.® I treated the text of each version
These are: Tantrlkhjlxika, Somthern Paficatantra, Nepalese Pailcatantra,
Hitopadeia (in ^eater part a Pafiaat^intra version), the poetic versions
found in Somadeva's Kathlsarits%ara and in K^emendra’s Bi’hatkathaniafijarl,
the **textas simplidor,’' Por^abhadra, and the principal offshoots of the
Pahlavi tramlaiaon.
* Possibly an exception might he made of some of the offshoots of the
“ textna simplicior,” of wliich text we have no critical edition. But I believe
that there is little chance of serious vitiation of the final result on account
of this. See page S8. I hare used all the information available to me (espe-
cially in BfertePs hook, Dom regarding the numerous later ver-
sions of the PaUoatantra. A few bits of interesting evidence bearing on
minor points of the reconstruction ha^e been extracted from them, and will
be presented at the proper places. In general they do not affect the result,
but merely tend to confirm conclusions which were reacht without their aid.
® A start towards such a subdivision was furnisht by Hertel in the table
printed in the Einleitung to his translation of the TantrlkhySiyika, pages
Method employed in the reconstruction
7
critically, noting variant readings of different manuscripts and
editions in so far as these are available »
Confronting these text-units, as found in the different ver-
sions, with each other, I studied the relationship of the ver-
sions. When a sentence or verse was found in identical or
practically identical language, and in the same position, in all
the prose Sanskrit recensions, and when its general sense was
found in the poetic and translated recensions, I assumed that
this sentence or verse was a literal inheritance from the original.
I found that such obvious correspondences are sufficiently
nupierous to establish, as it seems to me, beyond the possi-
bility of doubt the fact that all these recensions do in truth
go back to the single literary archetype assumed, Otherwise
it would seem impossible to explain so many verbal identities,
not only in verses, but also in prose.
However, in the large majority of cases I was not so for-
tunate as to find such general and absolute agreement. Here
it was necessary, by a careful examination of the cumulative
evidence of all the parallel text-units, to discover the relation-
ship of the versions to the original and to each other, in order
rightly to interpret their variations.^^ Unless and until this
could be done with an approach to certainty, no reconstruction
could be made, with any confidence, of passages in which the
existing versions disagree, or which are totally lacking in some
of them; for otherwise we could not answer the question, which
version is more apt to be original in any given case?
100 ff. My own comparisons included a number of texts not included in
this table; and ray subdivisions of the text are ranch more minute. For
instance, Hertel does not divide the prose text of the “ eraboxt ’’ stories at
all. He does furnish the correspondences of ailindividnal stanj&ae that occur
in the versions included in his table, I found Hertel’s table very mseful
as a starting-point. It goes without saying, however, that I did not aasnra©
without careful verification any of the correspondences stated in it. In fact
it. contains tluite a number of errors, and a more considerable number of
omissions, especially in regard to the Pahlavi versions.
For examples, see Chapter VI.
Here again I found myself to no small degree anticipated by Hertel?
but also, I found that in many important respects the evidence seemed to
disprove some of Ms most cherisbt theories. I shall make clear below the
extent to which I agree with his views as to the genealogy of the Paflea-
tantra versions.
8
Chapter I; Purpose and results of this book
Primary results of this investigation. — I must postpone for a
time a more detailed statement of the way in which this problem
was approacht. (See Chapter III, pages 49 ff.) I wish now to
state briefly just what I think has been accomplislit in regard
to the primary object of the investigation, the constitution of
the text of the original Pahcatantra. The Sanskrit text here
publisht and translated can, in my opinion, he regarded as a
close approximation to that original. It is surely, I think, very
much closer to it than any existing version. More specifically,
it seems to me that the following facts regarding it can be
demonstrated — if not beyond the possibility of doubt, at least
with an approach to certainty as great as one can often hope
to attain in a matter of literary genetics. The grounds on which
these propositions are based will, of course, be furnisht later.
1. Every story contained in my reconstruction can be attri-
buted with great confidence — in my opinion, with virtual cer-
tainty— to the original Pancatantra.
2. The original — again with virtual certainty — contained no
other stories than these.
3. Every stanza contained in my reconstruction occurred in
the original, with the possible exception of those which I en-
close in parentheses in text and translation (thirty out of four
hundred and twenty-two stanjzas). .
4. It is very possible that the original contained some verses
which are not inckded in my reconstruction. I believe that
there were not veiy many such.
5. As to the pro8& passagos, which for the most part con-
stitute the stories proper; every sentence of my reconstruction
represents at least the general sense of a corresponding sen-
tenee of the original, except that;
(a) Such sentences, phrases, words, or parts of words
as I enclose fa parentheses cannot vrith certainty be attri-
buted to the original; that is, they may perhaps be se-
condary insertions. They constitute, roughly, perhaps five
to eight percent of the total prose.
(b) Such sentences, phrases, or words as I enclose be-
tween daggers may fail to reproduce even the general idea
of the original, altho the evidence shows that the original
Primjiry results of this inTe8tig*ation
9
had something where they stand. That is, the ^^ersions are
so seriously discordant that they force us to resort to
guess-work as to which retains the general sense of the
original. Such cases are negligibly few.
6. I believe that there was very little, if any, prose matter
ill the origiilal of which I have failed to include in my re-
construction at least the general sense.
7. Furthermore^ in the case of all Sanskrit words or parts
of words which I print in Roman type, as distinguisht from
italics, and outside of parentheses, I believe we can be vir-
tually, if not absolutely, certain that we have preserved the
exact language of the original Pailcatanti'a. This is the case
with most of the stanzas, and a not inconsiderable part of the
prose. We occasionally find entire prose sentences which I be-
lieve reproduce the original, word for word and letter for
letter. More frequent are sentences of which this is only ap-
proximately true, and still more frequent are sentences whicli
contain a few words, or only a word or two, that were cer-
tainly in the original exactly as they stand; while there arc
many sentences of which even this can not be said. In the
case of the verses, on the other hand, only a minority are in
such a state that we cannot predicate originality of the greatest
part of their language. In the case of both prose and verses I
print in italics, in the text, all matter of which I do not feel
virtually certain that it literally reproduces the original.
8. The order of the original — not only the stories, but the
individual verses and prose sentences — was, with a very few
possible exceptions, exactly as it is in my reconstruction. As
to the order of the stories there are no exceptions. Attention
is called in my Critical Apparatus to the few cases in which
doubt exists as to the relative order, in the original, of verses
and prose sections. The somewhat more frequent^ but less
significant, uncertainties regarding the exact order of individual
words in a sentence are not always specifically mentioned by
me, because they are both obvious, and of minor importance.
Incidental results of this investigation. — One incidental result
of this investigation is the fact to which I have already alluded,
that many flaws in existing versions, even in the best of
10
Chapter I; Purpose and results of this hook
them, are now shown to be unoriginal. In other words, the
original Pahcatantra turns out to have been a finer work,
artistically^ than any of its descendants. This statement holds
good, as a general proposition^ of the relationship between the
original and at least the oldet existing versions— those which I
have used in my work. When they depart from the original,
they almost always make it worse. There are exceptions, but
they are not numerous. — More important by-products of the
work are the considerable number of cases in which light is
thrown on problems regarding the text or interpretation o£
individual versions, as well as on their general interrelation-
ships. In many cases the evidence of other versions tells us
which of several variant manuscript readings should be adopted
in a particular version. In some cases uncertainties as to the
meaning of a passage are liquidated by reference to the other
versions. And I hope to haA^e furnisht a more correct picture
of the relative positions of the soA^eral extant versions than
has been furnisht previously (see my genealogical table of the
versions, page 48, and Chapters IV and V of this Intro-
duction).
Extent of divergence from Hertel’s results. — Students of the
Paneatantra will be particularly interested to knoAv the extent
to which my results tend to confirm or disprove the opinions
of Professor Johannes Hertel, to whose long-continued activi-
ties in this field we owe so much, particularly as to the re-
lations of the several versions to each other and to the ori-
ginal. It seems, therefore, worth while to summarize as follows
the extent to which my own views, based on tlie studies con-
tained in this book, differ from Hertel’s. For a more detailed
statement, see Chapter V below.
1. There are four independent streams of Paneatantra tra-
dition. (For the list, , see page 52.) Hertel believes that there
are only two, Tantrakhyayika, and archetype of all other
versions (and in part of one subrecension of Tantrakhyayika).
for iastanoe my article oa “ Evil-wit, No-wit and Honest-wit,”
40. §71 ff,, in which I explain the previously misunderstood verse
Tantrflkhylyika I vs 167 (Reconstruction I vs 158) by reference to the
j)arailel versions.
Extent of divergence from Hertel’s results
11
2. Positive agreement between versions belonging to any
two of these constitutes ^rima facie evidence of the reading
of the original Pancatantra.
3. Hertel assumes that all existing versions go back to a
corrupt archetype, which he calls “t”. This I think is pure
imagination.
4. Hertel assumes an intermediate archetype “K ”, to which
all versions except Tantrakhyayika go back, and from which
even one subrecension of Tantrakhyayika was contaminated.
I think this “ K ” is a myth. The versions in question do not
go back to any secondary archetype. They are not especially
closely related — no more closely than any one of them is re-
lated to Tantrakhyayika (thru the original Pancatantra).
5. Hertel also assumes another intermediate archetype “ H-W
to which the Southern Pancatantra (and its relatives, the Ne-
palese Pancatantra and the Hitopadesa), the Pahlavi, and the
Simplicior go back. This also, I think, is a myth. These ver-
sions are not connected in any close or secondary way.
6. The manuscripts of the subrecension of the Tantrakhyayika
which Hertel calls ^ are not, certainly not to any considerable
extent, interpolated, as compared with the other subrecension, a.
On the contrary, a is fragmentary, and when it fails to re-
produce something found in (3, it is generally, if not invariably,
a which has lost something, not ^ which has inserted it The
suhrecension ^ is as pure a Taiitr^kliyayika version as a, and
on the whole a better representative of the original. No TantrS-
khyayika text, however, has anything like the privileged posi-
tion among Pancatantra versions which Hertel claims for the
Tantrakhy^yika as a whole.
Other, less important, points on which I differ from Hertel
will be brought out later. Most of the other statements found
or implied in his genealogical table (‘‘ Stammbaum”) of Panca-
tantra versions are borne out by my results.
CHAPTER II
THE MATERIALS
Pancataatra versions used in the reconstruction. — In tliis
chapter I shall give a summary account of the texts which
have formed the basis of my work, and their interrelationships
a.s I conceive them, with an estimate of the value of each of
them for my purpose. I shall reserve for later chapters lengthy
discussions of such of my statements as may need them.
As already stated in footnote 7 on page 6 (c/. also foot-
note 8, same page), the versions which I have principally used
are : TantrSkhyayika, Southern Pancatantra, Nepalese Panca-
tantra, Hitopadeia, the versions found, in Somadeva’s Katha-
sarifsagara and Ksemendra’s Pjhatkathamanjari, the so-called
“textus simplicior,” Purpabhadra, and the principal offshoots
of the Pahlavi translation.
The TAJsramadmTiKiA
The TambrSkhy&yika (p.bhreviated T),^ — This is a recension
of which the only mauuseiipts known come from Kashmir and
a^e written in the &rada alphabet. It was discovered by
Hartel in the early years of the twentieth century. It exists
in two subrecensions, called by Hertel a and p, each of which
contains ope or more stories, and (at least in the case of 3)
a more considerable number of verses and prose ‘sentences,
which the other lacks. Except for tihis, however,, the text
found in both recensions is practically identical;, ,the different
readings ip the manuscripts are comparativialy few and un-
Editiou : TantrXkliySyika. Die Ulieete Faesung ,des Fafioatantra . . . heraua-
gepban Ton Jobaanes Hertel. Berlin, 1910. (Abh. kgl.Ges. d. Wisa zn GBttingen
phil.-hist. Kl., rr. F. Bd. XII, no. 2.)— Trajialation: TaatjAbySyika. Die alteste
Fassung des Paficatantra, ana dem Sanskrit Ubergetet mit Einleitung and
Anmerknngen von Johannes Hertel. 2 Vols. Leipzig and Berlin, 1909.
The Tantrakhyayika
13
important. Herters edition combines the two, and quotes the
variant readings of both in the critical apparatus; it tends to
prefer the readings of a to those of ^ in case of a disagreement,
because the editor believes that a is the more original recension. ,
My own opinion is rather the reverse. In any case, however,
the readings of all the manuscripts quoted by Hertel must be
considered in a critical study of the text. It is not safe to
neglect any of them.
Extent to which the Tantrakhyayika preserves the original
text. — The Tantrakhyayika gives us, on the whole, more of
the original text than any other recension. I estimate that it
contains the general sense, at least, of ninety-five percent of
the original text, both prose and verses. And the exact lan-
guag’O of the original appears to have been preserved intact
more extensively in the Tantrakhyayika than in any other
version. These statements are more nearly true of the 0 sub-
recension than of the a; the a subrecension has omitted one
entire story and a number of individual sentences and verses
winch P has preserved from the original; whereas the reverse
is very seldom the ease (in particular, p has all the stories of
the original, and a has no original verses that are lacking in
g). Yet there are, in the aggregate, a not inconsiderable number
of clear omissi9ns in the TantiTikhyayika— that is, in all manu-
scripts alike. To some extent these may he due merely to im-
perfect textual tradition. For there are some obvious and indu-
bitable lacunae in the text as we have it,— -some passages in
which it is clear that the author or redactor of the Tantra-
khyayika wrote something that has been lost from our manu-
scripts (all of wliich are late and more or less corrupt). There
are, however, also cases in which the omission of something
original appears to go back * to the redactor of the Tantra-
kbyayika, or even to an archetype of it, a still older but also
secondary version. There are likewise many eases in which
the TantrUkhyayika’s text has more or less seriously altered,
without entirely omitting, a section of the original.
Secondary . additions in the Tantrakhyayika.— The inMehldes
to the original found in Tantrakhyayika consist mainly of iii-
sertions and expansions rather than omissions or subslitutions.
Both of its subrecensions contain throe stories which did not
14
Chapter II: The materials
belong to the oi-iginal; and, in addition, a alone contains one
other, and p alone fire others (but three of these five may
really have been found in a, since the a manuscripts happen
to have long lacunae at the points where p has these stories),®
Moreover, both recensions contain a quite considerable number
of verses and prose passages which are certainly or probably
unoriginal. This is, more true of ^ than of a; a contains few
insertions (only a single stanza, for instance, except those
pertaining to the interpolated story a III. 5) which are not
found also in (3.
Hertel’s views of the Tantrakhya3rika, — Altho my object in
tliis chapter is to give mainly a summary of my own deductions
from my investigations, rather than to engage in controversy,
I feel that it would be unfair to the discoverer, and first editor
and translator, of the Tantrakhyayika if I failed to mention at
this point the extent to which my views of this version differ
from his. Wlien he first discovered the Tantrakhyayika, Hertel
hailed it as the genuine, original ^‘Urtext” of the Pancatantra
itself, — the very thing which it is the object of my present in-
vestigation to reconstruct. This opinion was decidedly untenable,
and Hertel has withdrawn materially from it. His present,
much more modest opinion he has stated as follows:^ “The
enormbiM adv^antage which the Taiitrakhyayika furnishes us lies
in the faet that it is tl.ie only version which contains the unab-
breviated and hot imteniioually altered language of the author,
which no ottter Indian Patcataatra version has preserved,
^ The stoi-ies of the TantrEfchj^yika are: I. 8 (Blue Jackal), 1. 13
(Jackal Outwite Claxpel aad luion), II. 4 (Weaver Somilaka) ; in a alone, a III. 6
(Treackeroua BawiI); in p alone, HI. 7 (Kang ^m), p IH. 11 (Fox and Talking
Gave), HI. 11 of edition (Old Hansa), IV. 1 (Punisht Onion-thief), p IV. 3
(Potter as Wamor). There are laounae in « at the places where P has the
drat, third, and fourth of the five last named. All but one (King &vi) of
th we nine atoiiefi occur somewhera in some one or other of the other recensions
included in my study. Keverthaless I think they can all be shown pretty
conclusively to he secondary. Hertel also regards them as secondary. He
likewise holds several other atone® found in both recensions, and one story
(Old Man, Young Wife, = and Thi^) found only in p (Appendix, p IH. 6),
to be certainly or possibly secondary. I shall show later that there seem
to be good grounds for oonaidering tiiem original.
^ ZDMG, 69. 118 (year 1915); Uus is the latest statement on the subject
from Hertel which T have seen.
Hertel’s views of the Tautrakhyayika
15
while the Palilavi translation distorts it by numerous misunder-
standings.” This is qualified elsewhere by the admission that
in addition to the “ unabbreviated . , . language of the author ”
it contains also numerous additions and interpolations from
later hands.'^ But even thus qualified, the statement seems to
me misleading in two respects.
First, I think that many of the alterations (which are after
all rather numerous in the aggregate, if proportionally few;
they certainly mount into the hundreds) made by the Tantra-
khyayika in the text of the original were probably just as
‘‘ intentional ” as the alterations made in other versions. Surely
the insertions, which Hertel himself admits were numerous,
must have been “intentional” alterations; and if the redactor
of the Tantrakhyayika “ intentionally ” changed the text in
one way, why should he not have done so in another? In
fact I think it can be proved that he or his archetype did,
almost surely “ intentionally,” make many changes^ — including
both omissions and substitutions — in the original author’s words.
Secondly, I think it is a very serious exaggeration to describe
the advantag’e which the TantrakhyEyika has over the other
versions in this respect as “ enormous ” {iingelieuer). All the
Sanskrit versions which I have used in this work contain some
of the original author’s words. The mainly prosaic recensions
(Southern Pancatantra, Hitopadesa, “textus simplicior,” Piirna-
bhadra) show, by the extent to winch they agree verbally with
the Tantrakhyayika and with each other, that to a not incon-
siderable extent (tho, I grant, not to the same extent as Tantra-
khyayika) they too “ contain the unabbreviated and not [in-
tentionally] altered language of the author.” The same was
true of the Sanskrit original of the Pahlavi. And when these
other versions differ from the TantrakhyEyika, it is not by
any means safe to assume that the Tantrakhyayika is more
original than they. Especially is this true of the Southeim
Pancatantra. To be sure, the Southern Pancatantra abbreviates
the text to a considerable extent. But it is equally true—and
this is what Hertel seems to overlook — that it contains a
^ Hertel actually admits more interpolations in the text of TantrakhyEyikA
than I should; at least, he regards as insertions, certain or probable, several
stories which I consider genuine.
16
Chapter 11; The materials
very large proportion of the original text in unabbreviated,
or only slightly abbreviated, form. In a great many sentences
it agrees with other versions, especially the Tantra-
kliyayika. And it has one great advantage over the Tantralchya-
yika^ that it has almost no interpolations. Nearly everything
which it contains is taken from the original, at least in general
sense, and largely in exact language. — 1 shall point out in
dealing with the various other versions, especially the two
Jain versions Simplicior ” and • Purnabhadra), that Hertel
underestimates their value, also, as representatives of the original.
The Tantrakhyayika has no privileged position among Panca-
tantra versions. — In short, the difference between the Tantra-
khyayika and the other versions, in their relations to the
original, is a difference of degree , and not a difference of kind.
AH are to a considerable extent original. All are to a not in-
considerable extent unoriginal. On the whole^ the Tantrakhya-
yika contains more of the original than any other. But it would
not be true to say that a greater proportion of the text of the
Tantrakhyayika is original than of any other. In this respect
it is surpast by the Southern Pahcatantra, which has much
less unomginal material than the Tantrakhyayika, and probably
less than any other version,^ except the greatly abbreviated
and versified Somadeva. And, I "^fouid lay special emphasis on
the words on the whole, italicized above. In spite of all his
resarvationa, Hertel tends to assume much too lightly that the
language of the Tantrakhyayika is the language of the original
Paficatantra. In my opinion this can never be assumed without
confirmation from some other version. And there are, all in
all, a good many cases in which not only is such confirmation
lacking, but on the contrary the other versions prove quite
oondusively that the Tantr^khyllyika^s language is unoriginal.
See Cliapter VII below, where I have collected fully two hundred
such cas-es.®
* It mi^ht be equalled in this respect by the Sanskrit original of the
PahiaTi, if we had It
® Over-confidence in Hertel’s opinion has misled many scholars, including
myself in the past, in this respect. Thus in AJF. 36. 58 I drew the same
distinction that Hertel draws between the TantrSkhySyika and all other
veirions, stating that the latter were all ‘‘ deliberately and radically recon-
Tantrakhyayika — Southern Paficatantra
17
On the relation of the Tantrakhyayika to the Jain versions,
see below page 36 ff.
The Southern Pa^oatantra and Related Versions
The Southern Pancatantra (abbreviated SP)J— As the name
implies, this version is characteristic of Southern India. Its
numerous manuscripts are groupt by its editor, Hertel, in five
subrecensions^ which he calls a, o, and t He considers a
the best and most original subrecension, on the whole; and in
this he is clearly right. The readings of the a manuscripts, as
quoted by him, regularly (tho not invariably) tend to agree
more closely with other versions than those of the ^ manu-
scripts. The other three subrecensions contain many secondary
insertions and are in general inferior. The readings of the
subrecensions a and ^ often differ considerably, — more than
those of the Tantrakhyayika a and p, for instance. In view of
the general superiority of a, it is unfortunate that Hertel in
his edition chose to ignore a in constituting the text which he
prints, using (3 exclusively, even in the many cases where ^
is corrupt and a gives us the true reading. This means that
anyone who wishes to make any scientific use of the Southern
Pancatantra must go to the great trouble of searching thru
the wilderness of Hertel’s critical apparatus for the readings
structed”, so as to be “ really quite new works.” So also Tkomas, JJM8,
1910, p. 971: The differences which mark off the other redactions [than
Tantr.] are of an order practically precluding textual comparison ^ they
belong to the higher criticism, involving omissions and insertions of whole
stories ... in fact recasting of a drastic character.” I now realise Hxat such
views must be abandoned. Both Thomas and I, like many others, were too
easily imprest by the extreme confidence of Hertel’s statements. Thomas
frankly stated in the same article (p. 970) that he had not undertaken a
real verification of Hertel’s theories, since that would demand an amount
of time comparable to that spent upon it by Dr. Hertel himself.” Having
now spent such an amount of time upon it, I feel better able to distinguish
the sound from the unsound in Hertel’s work.
The edilio princeps^ by M. Haberlandt (Sitzungsberichte of the Vienna
Academy, phil.-hist KL, Bd. 107, p, 397ff,) is now superseded by the following:
Das siidliche Paficatantra. Sanskrittext der Rezension p mit den Lesarten der
besten Hss. der Rezension a. Herausgegeben von Johannes Hertel. Leipzig, 19U6.
(Abh. d. phil.-hist. KL d. kgl. sachs. Ges. d. Wiss., Bd. 24, no. 6.) No translation
into a European language has yet appeared.
Edgerton, Paficatantra. XI.
2
18
Chapter 11 s The materials
of the a manuscripts on everj single word, — a ^vearisome and
gratuitous labor which Hertel ought to have spared the users
of his book.^
Extent to which the Southern Pahcatantra preserves the original
text. — As Hertel 1ms repeatedly stated, the Southern Paiica'
tantra gives us a text which is, at least to some degree, an
abstract. The abbreviation of the original is, however, not so
drastic as one might suppose from reading Hertel ’s statements.
Every original story is preserved. The general sense of the
narrative is faithfully followed; as a rule. Seldom is an essen-
tial feature omitted or obscured by abbreviation. More than
this: a largo number of individual sentences are taken over
from the original, either verbatim, or with only slight changes.
I estimate that more than three-quarters of the bulk of the
prose found in the original is found, at least as to general
® HertePs reason for this procedure was a passionate opposition, amounting
almost to a mania, to what he calls “ eclecticism.” According to him, the
a manuscripts of the Southern Pahcatantra are not complete enuf to make
it possible to print their text in its entirety; and so, rather than “contami-
nate ” the p text with the readings of other subrecensions, he chose to print
the “pure” text of p (with quantities of corruptions which are simply un-
in terpretable). These couBiderations do not seem to me valid. It is not
“ eclecticism ” to print the best text available of an individual recension,
such, as SP, using aU manuscripts of that recension, whatever their inter-
relationship. A suhrecension, so-called, is not an indfipendent version; it is
mmrely a conveniMt grouping of manuscripts. All the suhrecensions (if the
word is properly used) represent ultimately one and the same text. There
is no scientific interest or tAIuo in the stupid scribal blunders of SPP, which
distort so much of the printed text of the Southern Paficatantra; and there
is very lifelde Interest in the still more numerous variations of P which are
grammatically and Siemanrically possible, but shown by agreements of the
« manuscripts with other versions to be secondary. What we should have
desired of H^tel is the best approach possible to the true “ Urtext ” of the
Southern Pafioatantra.^ — That Hertel made this error of judgment, to the
great inconTenienoe , of all users of his edition, is all the more surprizing
in view of the contrary system which he (very rightly) adopted in editing
the Tantrakhyiyika In that case, altho he regards Tantrakhyayika « as
more original than P, he does not hesitate to reject its readings in favor
of those of P when the latter are (in his eyes) evidently required by the
sense, nor to fill the extensive lacunae of the a mss. by the text of p. This
is just as much “ eolectitcUm ” as it would have been to print the text of
Southern Pahcatantra « so far as available, supplementing it by P; and no
more so.
Southern Pahcatantra — Nepalese Pahcatantra 19
sense and to a considerable extent as to exact language, in
the Southern PaScatantra.-^ The proportion of original verses
preserved is only slightly less (more than two-thirds). The
compression of SP should not obscure the fact that it does,
after all^ preserve very much of the original, and often more
accurately than the TantrUkbyayil^a.
Secondary additions in the Southern Pahcataatra.— The South-
ern Pancatantra contains very few interpolations. There is
one interpolated stoiy (I. 12, Shepherded and Lovers). There
are a very few insertions or expansions in the prose narrative,
and apparently a few inserted verges. Nearly tiie whole of
the text may be regarded as representing the contents of tiie
original Pancatantra.
The Nepalese Pancatantra (abbreviated N). — In 1905 Hertel
received a copy of part of a Nepalese manuscript apparently
intending to furnish the vers^s^ only, of a Pancatantra recension
nearly allied to the Southern Pancatantra. Later he received
another copy containing the remaining portions of presumably
the same manuscript. This Nepalese version contains neaidy
(tho not quite) all the verses contained in the a subrecension
of the Southern Pancatantra. It also contains one single prose
sentence found in the latter. Evidently this was included hy
the redactor under the impression that it was a verse, This
circumstance incidentally shows — what we should assume a
priori — that this recension was prepared on the basis of a
® It must be remembered that Hertel’s printed text will not sbow this
to anyibmg like tiie extent that the « manuscripts show it.
We are compelled to regard, proTiaionally, as suA ters^
aa appear only in the Soni^ern Paioatantra and the related Hepalie# t®5d
and Hitoplbd®^ ft is probable tliat most of at were not found'
in the o-rtg^nai, aii' otherwise the dianeea ‘tre that mM WotM
preserve a traoe of However, “iasiiis oan of 'Ooira® aot 'bO
cex'tain, and in view of the general rarii^ of id. ii ''te h/
means unlikely that some of these verses may be inhoi^tod froah ih®
The niiot tliat most of the verS'es are only looa^y '»et i® th^#'
and that it is easy both to insert and to omit makes it more dffdoalt
to be sure of the seoondary charaoter of v^ea th;aO of prose text-units which
are found in only one stream of tradition-.
Hdlted by pLertel! Imtroduciion and Books I—EI in the “ Anmerkungen
(p. 117 E) to his edition of the Southern Falloatantraj
p. SXVll of Introdnotion to his edition of
; 'p '
20
Chapter 11: The materials
complete PaScatantra text containing^ as usual, both prose and
verses. Since the Nepalese text contains not a single verse or
sentence that is not found in the Southern Pancatantra (a); it
is safe to assume that its original was a text very similar to
that. SincO; however, it frequently happens that the Nepalese
text has readings which are different from those of the Southern
Pancatantra (all manuscripts), and since neither is consistently
superior to the other, but each often has readings shown by
the other Pancatantra version^ to be more original than the
other: therefore we may agree with Hertel in thinking that
the Southern Pancatantra and the complete text on which the
Nepalese is based were not identical, nor directly derived one
from the other, but that they are closely related offshoots of
the same archetype (which I would propose to call the Ur-
SP," that is the archetype of the Southern Pancatantra). We
shall presently see that the archetype of the Nepalese text
(called by me “ Ur-N ”) was the same as that of the Hitopade^a.
The Hitopade^a (abbreviated B) : its origin.^® — This is a version
connected especially with Bengal, where it is very popular,
and where it presumably originated. At any rate it has sup-
planted all other Pancatantra versions in popular favor there.
The aiithor gives his own* name as Nlirayana^ and tells us that
he used ^^the Pameataaitra and another work in, composing
the Hitopade^a- He profeably liwed between 800 and 1373
A. n.j it has not been , possible, to determine the date more
exactly (Hertel, Pcs^c., p. 39). The version of the Pancatantra
nepaAtedly edited, but a sstilsfactory critical edition is yet to be made.
Ifor my present inresrigation I baTe used tbe two best of those accessible
to me (SohlegeFs, unfortanatelyy' was not accessible), namely: (1) HitopadeSa
by Edited by Peter Peterson. Bombay, 1887, (Bombay Sanskrit
no. XXXIIL)’ — (2) Handbooks for the Study of Sanskrit. Edited by
Max MtUer, M. A. I: The Pirst Book of the Hitopadesa . . , London, 1864.
H; The Second^ Tted and; Ifourth Books of the Hitopadela . . . London, 1865.
—Mtllleris edition does not pretend to be critical or scholarly, being pro-
leesedly a reader Ibr beginneimi Bevertheless it seems to me, on the whole,
that the text is as good as Peterson’s: Each contains many original features
that are db-anged in tibe other, so that they are both valuable for our purposes.
Peterson’s odation dahns to be critical; Hertel speaks slightingly (perhaps
too slightingly) of its reliability.— Numerous translations of the Hitopadeia
4aTe been uaAde in most modem European languages. Bee Hertel, .Pa^c., 43
A literal, interlinear translation is furnisht in Mdller’s edition.
Nepalese Pafieatintra— Hitopadesa
21
whicli lie used was, as Hertel has indicated, apparently the
same one (called by me “ Ur-N ”) which served as a basis for
the Nepalese verse- text mentioned above; that is, a near relative
of the Southern Pancatantra. This is shown by the following*
facts. (1) Books I and II of the Pancatantra are transposed
in the Nepalese text and. the Hitopadesa, and in no other ver-
sions. (2) The Hitopadei^a, like the Nepalese text, contains
most of the verses of the Southern Pancatantra (except those
wliich occur in parts of the work omitted by it), and its read-
ings tend strongly to agree with those of the Nepalese when
the latter differs from the Southern Pancatantra. The Hito-
padeSa also contains a few verses of the Southern Fanea-
tantra which the Nepalese, perhaps by accident, omits. It
contains practically no original Pancatantra verses that are
not found in the Southern Pancatantra. (3) The prose text of
the Hitopadesa, in so far as it belongs to the Pancatantra
tradition, tends to agree closely with that of the Southern
Pancatantra.
General plan of the Hitopadesa. — As already indicated, the
Hitopadesa is a combination of Pancatantra materials witli
those of some other, unnamed work (or works?). Its general
plan appears to have been largely original with its author. To
he sure, the transposition of Pancatantra Books I and II goes
hack, as we have seen, to its immediate Pancatantra archetype.
And the frame-work of these two books is mainly preserved
in Hitopadesa Books II and L But the rest of the work is
quite new in plan. Instead of five books, the Hitopade4^a has
only four. Its third book has as its frame a story whidh fe
only a remote reflex of PaScatantra Book IIL The frame of
its fourth book is wholly new, tiho evidently intended as a
companion-piece to Book III and suggc^d by the title of the
original Paficatantra^s third booki^® Book IV of Ae PaScatantra
is wholly omitted ; the stories of Book V, including the
story, are included as emboxt stories in Hitopade&i Books III
Patio. Book III is eiatitied War and Peao®” and
of a war between the crows and tbs owls. Hit. Book HI is nailed
and teUs the story of a war between two other specie! of birda,
hahsas” and the peacocks; its Book IV is called Peace aad tells hew
peace was made between the same two parti ea.
22
Chapter 11: The materials
and IV. Several of the emhoxt stories of Pancatantra Book I
are transferred to the Hitopade^a^s new Book IV; those of
Pancatantra Book III are impartially divided between Hito-
padeSa Books III and IV; not a few stories of the first three
books of the Pancatantra are omitted altogether, and various
stories not found in the Pancatantra are inserted in all four
books of the Hitopade^a, presumably from the unnamed “ other
work ” referred to hy NarEyajia.
Extent to wMcli the HitopadeiSa preserves the original text.—
In spite of this extensive rearrangement of its materials, the
Hitopade^ia is of considerable value for the reconstruction of
the original Pancatantra. It preserves most of the frame-stories
of Books I and 11, and over half of the emhoxt stories of the
entire Pancatantra. More important is this fact: in so far as
it uses a Pancatantra archetype at all, it tends to follow it
rather closely, not only in general sense, but in exact language,
aldxo there are stories in which, hy exception, it departs widely.
I estimate that it contains at least the general sense of not
far from two-fifths of the prose, and nearly one-third of the
verses, of the original Pancatantra. If the first two hooks of
the Pancatantra be considered separately, the proportion of
tiieir materials preserved in the Hitopadesa would be higher
(perhaps' one-M£ of the prose and two-fiiA^ of the verses).
Since ife PaScalafifea ^^hetype was closely allied to the
Southern Pancatanka, it wilt be found that it tends to agree
in general witli the readings of that text. But it forms a
valuably check on them, not infrequently shows superior
readings, agreeing with other versions against the Southern
Paheatantra, To a considerable extent it replaces for us the
lost prose of the archetype of the Nepalese verse-text. It
even contains, tiho rarely, sections of tlie original which are
entirely O^nitted in all our manuscripts of the Southern Panca-
tantra, '■
Seeondaxy additions in the Hitopadesa. — We have spoken
already of the numerous new stories found in the Hitopadesa.
Aside from these, there occur, in fixe stories and parts of
stories takM from the Paficatantra, a considerable number of
iijLserted verses, and some expansions of the prose narrative.
The latter are, however, not numerous.
Hitopadesa— Brhatkatha versious
23
The Bl.aiATKATIll VeESIOHS (SoMAEEVA ANI> KtjiEMEEEUA)
The Pancatantra’s position in the Brhathatha. — The studies
of F. Lacote^^ in the existing descendants of the great story-
collection, in Prakrit verse, called the Brhatkatha and attri-
buted to Gunadhya, have made it practically certain that the
original text of that -work contained no version of the Panca-
tantra. But, according to Laedte— and his arguments seem
strong, tho not perhaps absolutely compelling, on this point
too— a version of it was contained in a later recast, and ex-
pansion, of the Bphatkatha, made at an uncertain date apparently
in northwest India, — perhaps in Kashmir. Laeote believes that
this recast, too', and consequently the Pancatantra version con-
tained in it, was composed in Prakrit verse, in tho dialect
called PaisS-ci. This northwestern Bvhatkatha, like its archetype,
the original work, is lost to us. It is known only thru two later
versions: Somadeva’s KathasaritsHgara (or, as it was perhaps
called originally, BpliatkathUsaritsagara ; see Speyer, Studus
about the KatMsaritsagaraj Amsterdam, 1908), and Kfemendra’s
BrhatkathamanjarL Both of these w^orks are in Sanskrit verse,
and both were composed in Kashmir, probably in the eleventh
century a, d. The evidence of these two works seems to prove
that the Pancatantra version contained in their common ori-
ginal was very radically abbreviated. Apparently it omitted
the Introduction and at least one story of the original (I. 3).
Certainly it aimed to tell the tales as briefly as possible, and
contained few, if any, expansions, while omitting many features
of the original which seemed to its author unessential. Especially
the verses of the original suffered in the abbreviation. Very
few of tihem survived.^^ The reason for this te clear; most of
the verses are moralizing, proverbial stanzas, and are not a
real part of tho narrative at all.
Effect of language and versification on the Bvhatkatha Torsions.
— If Lacdte is right in supposing that Somadeva and Kiemendra
Particularly in his sur ta Faditi,
Only about one-fiftb of all the yeraes of tb© original bave
seryed in Somadeya and Kfemendra together (counting those yrhWt oow
in one but not in the other). And a nnrnber of these are catdh^vwefS
of stories, not the ordinary proyerbial stanzas.
24
Chapter II: The materials
go back to an original, tbe northwestern Bi'hatkatlia, which
was composed in the Pai^aci Prakrit, then it follows that the
Sanskrit of these two versions is a retranslation of a trans-
lation. This would lead us to expect that little, if any, of the
exact language of the original could be preserved in them.
Add to this consideration their poetic form, and their drastic
abbreviation, and it would seem hard to believe that they
could give us many words just as the original had them.
Nevertheless we find in the aggregate quite a good many such,
altho few in comparison with the mainly prosaic Sanskrit
recensions. The preservation— or restoration — of some words
of the original Sanskrit after two translations can he explained
by the fact that the first translation was into a Prakritic dialect,
that is a dialect closely related to Sanskrit, which preserved
the hulk of the Sanskrit vocabulary, with only the usual pho-
netic and morphological changes in the words. Hence it is not,
after all, surprising that some of these words were retranslated
into the same Sanskrit words that were found in the original.
So it happens that these versions are of some help in determin-
ing even the exact language of the original. There are, howe-
ver, few, if any, entire sentences or verses of the original
that are preserved intact in them.^®
Ksemendra (abbreviated E:s).^’^—K§emendra's text is the most
drastically abbreviated of ail those which I have used. It carries
the abbreviation much farther than its supposed archetype,
the lost northwestern BrhatkathS, apparently did, — at least
much farther &m Somadeva does. Nevertheless it contains
Ouio or two ea»es in wMcb this is approximately the case in K^emendra
auiy be dne to its borrowings from, the TantrEkhySyika; see below.
The Pailcatantra section of K^eraendra has been edited by itself: Der
dem FaMcatmira in Kslmnendras BrihatkathdmaiijaA. Einleitung,
Text, Cfbersetzong und Anmerkungen ron Leo von Madkowski, Dr. iur, et
pbiL Leipisig, ie9t. Most of Madkowski’s text is based upon a single
imperfeet manuscript. The editor emends freely, sometimes judiciously, but
often unsucoesafuliy. On the whole more useful, because more complete and
based on more manuscripts (whose variants are quoted), is tbe text found in
the following edition of ELsemendra’s complete work: The BrihatkatUmanjart
of Kahe^mmdra. Edited by Mahdmahopadydya Papdit fevadatta ... and
KMhiuUh. Pdudurang Parab. Bombay, 1901. (KavyamSla 69.) Paficatantra
on pp, 661 ff. I have collated the text of the Paftcatantra in both these editions.
K?emondra
25
five stories which were not found in the original.^® All of these
interpolated stories are found in TantrakhyUyika one of
them in no other version used by me, and another nowhere'*
else at the same place, while none of the five occurs outside
of Tantrakhyayika and the Jain versions (which latter, as
we shall see, used the same secondary archetype as Tantr.).
These facts seem to justify us in believing with Hertel that
if K^emendra’s principal archetype was the northwestern Brhat-
katha, he must have used also a manuscript of Tantrakhya-
yika. Por this reason other agreements between Ksemendra
and Tantrakhyayika cannot bo considered as evidence bearing
on the original. As a matter of fact K§emendra’s text is so
mangled by abbreviation that he gives us comparatively little
help in reconstructing even the general sense of the original;
and he seldom preserves any of the original words, from what-
ever source. He includes, to be sure, all the stories of the
original except the Introduction and I, 3, being thus more
complete than Somadeva; but as the stories lacking in Soma-
deva may have been taken by Ksemendra from the Tantra-
khyayika, we cannot assume that they occurred in the supposed
northwestern Brhatkatha. And in spite of this relative complete-
ness of his materials, the major part of the prose narrative
of the original (I estimate, fully fifty-five percent) and nearly all
the original verses (close to ninety percent) are omitted without
trace in Ksemendra. In short, the stories are cut to the bone (to
the great detriment of the result, artistically speaking). Yet, since
Ksemendra contains some matter that Somadeva lacks, we cannot
entirely neglect him; tho we must remember the possibility that
such matter may have been taken from the Tantrakhyayika.
Secondary additions in Ksemendra, except the stories men-
tioned above, are practically non-existent.
Somadeva (abbreviated So).^^ — In Somadeva’s KathasaritsSgara
the five books of the Pancatantra are found separated from one
These are I. 7 (Blue Jackal), 1. 12 (Jackal outwits Camel and Lion),
III. 11 (Old Haiisa), IV. 1 ( Punish t'Onion-thief), and IV. 3 (Potter as Warrior.)
IV. 1 occurs elsewhere only in Tantr., and III. 11 only in Tantr. in the
same place (in PUrpabhadra in Book I).
There are two editions of Somad era’s complete work. (1) KaiM B(wU
S^gara, Die MUrchensammhmg des Somadeva. Herausgegeben von Hermann
26
Chapter U; The materials
another by extraneous materials. In this respect HerteP*^ believes
that Somadeva follows his original, the northwestern Brhatkatha.
*^His work is characterized by a graceful and attractive style;
his stories are well-told, and while no words are wasted, they
are seldom cut down so as to spoil the artistic workmanship of
the narrative. In both of these respects he contrasts favorably
with Ksemendra. Somadeva lacks five stories o£ the original,
besides the Introduction. To what extent these omissions go
back to his supposed archetype, the northwestern B]*hatkatha,
cannot be determined with confidence.^^ On the other hand he
preserves considerably moi'e than Ksemendra does of the bulk of
the narrative. He contains at least traces of about three-fifths of
the original prose. Of the original verses, of course, he gives
Brockhaxis. Leipzig: (Part I, Books 1 — 5) 1839, (Part II, Books 6—8) 1862,
(Part III, Books 9 — 18) 1866. (The last two = Ahliandltmgen fur die
Kunde des Movgenlandea'XX, 5 and IV, 6.) The Paiicataiitra is found on pages
lllflp. of Part ni. (2) The Kafkdsaritsdgara of Somadevahhatta, Edited by
Pa^idit LurgHpras^d and Eksinith Papdnrang Parab. Bombay, 1889. (Pafiea-
tantra, according to Hertel, Tafw, p. 32, on pages 365 ff.) 2nd ed., Bombay,
1903. (Paflcatantra on pages 309 ff.) I have compared tbruouf the texts of
both Broekhaus and DurgSprasad and Parab (2nd ed.) for the Paflcatantra
section. The variants are few and usually unimportant. — The entire work
of Somadeva has been translated into English; The Kathd Sarit Bdgara or
Ocean ^ & B^ewm of translated; .. . . by 0. H. Taif^ey, M. A. 2 vols.
Calcutta, T860 aiad 1884 48—62, 64— 75, 84—87,
90—91 ofVoL2»
^ Bee his mono'graph Mm kUmdi^Jm Nan^mhuchf Ber. ti, d. Verb. d. kgl.
sHchs. Ces, d,1ViSs., phB.-hist. KL, 1912, Bd. 64, Heft 1.
We have aeea that BCfomendra also lacks the Introduction and 1. 3
(Three Self-chused Mishaps), which therefore may be presumed to have been
lacking in ilie northwestern Bybatkatha. Besides these Somadeva omits I. 4
(Crows and Serj^ent), II. 4 (Beer’s Former Captivity), and the two emboxt
stories of Book V (Brahman builds Aircastles, and Barber who killed the
Monks). Of these IL 4 is properly only an unessential incident in the frame-
story of Book IJ, and may have been lost in the process of shortening;
many of the original are lost in the Brhatkatha versions.
This same story was dropt, obviously for the same reason as here suggested,
by a late descendant of Pttrvabhadra; see Hertel, Pafic,^ P-117. I. 4 is par-
ticularly interesting because it forms the frame for 1. 6 in the original;
Somadeva preserves I. 6 but not I. 4, and is therefore exceptionally awkward
in the way he fits I. 5 into the frame. Hertel (Tantr, Einleitung zur tJber-
setzung p. 42) assumes— too hastily, I think— that this omission goes back
to Somadeva’s original. It nuig do so, but there is no possibility of telling.
Somatlova— Jain versions
27
US very much less (traces of a sixth to a fifth). In general
he shows extraordinary fidelity to the sense of the original,
in so far as he preserves it at all. There are few changes,
and almost no insertions. Every story in Somadeva is (in my
opinion) original, and almost every phrase gives us at least
the sense of something original. For this reason, in spite of
his brevity, he is very useful for the reconstruction. Moreover,
there is no reason to suspect his text of being contaminated
with an extraneous version, as K§emendra^s is.
The Jain Vmisions (“ Sdcplioiob ” and PtJR^jTABnADKA)
The so-called “ textus simplioior ” (abbreviated Spl).^^ — The
name textus simplieior ” goes back to Kosegarten, the first
editor of this version, and is kept for want of a better, since
its author’s name is unknown and the titles given in the ma-
nuscripts (PancakhylLnaka, or PancakbyHna, “also called Pan-
catantra”) are not sufficiently distinctive (the former is applied
also to PtLri^abhadra’s text). On the whole I agree with Hertel’s
opinion that the author was probably a Jain, tlio not all his
arguments (summarized Pane, p. 72 f.) seem to me effective,
and the sum total of them is perhaps not absolutely compelling.
His date is put by Hertel between 900 and 1199 (the latter
being the date of Purnabhadra, who used this text — or rather,
T should say, its archetype). This version became very popular
in western and central India, and, with other versions which
are based on it largely or wholly, it has virtually crowded
out all other Pancatantra recensions in those regions. I regret
to say that the materials at my disposal for determining the
text of Simplieior (as I shall call it for short) were less satis-
The imperfect ediHo by Kosefarieo (Bqjan, 1848), has been
supplanted by that publisfat in the Bombay Sanskrit Series under the title
FancKatantra (BSS I, Bombay 1868, edited by G. Bthler, contains Books It"
and V; BSS III, 1868, also by Bahler, Books II and III; BSS IT,
edited by F. Kielhorn, Introduction and Book I). This was not intehdtdLto
be a critical scholarly edition, but merely a school textbook for bofinneci;.,
it was apparently based on a sing-le manuscript (see Kielhorn’s statej^en^l
quoted by Hertel, ZDJfG. 66. 298f.), and Hertel soapects that the autliors
corrected this manuscript from Kose^arten’s edition. No other odition can
be used in a critical way at all; rarious prints by Hindu editor®
be of little or no value. For translations see Hertel, Fmc,, p, and p Wi,
28
Chapter II; The materials
factory than the materials for any other recension. In addi-
tion to the editions referred to in note 22, I had only such
scattered information about the readings of various manuscripts
as is given in various places by Hertel, especially in the “Pa-
rallel Specimens ” in Harvard Oriental Series 13, According to
Hertel, the manuscripts fall into two groups or subrecensions,
which he calls the H-class and the tj-class. To the latter be-
longs the- ms, used by Buhler-Kielhorn, to the former those
principally used by Kosegarten. “ Of the two classes^ each at
times excels the other in the greater originality of an occa-
sional passage,” It is therefore certain that the text of Sim-
plicior studied and quoted by me is imperfect. A really critical
edition of it would improve the readings in many places. But
whether these improvements in the text of Simplicior would
often have any important bearing on the reconstruction of the
original, T doubt. For, in the first place, the Simplicior happens
to be of less importance in reconstructing the original than,
perhaps, any other text used by me. And, in the second place,
all its manuscripts appear to be sufficiently close to each other
in their readings so that we may assume, on the theory of
chances, that the coincidence of a serious divergence in their
readings^ witia a passage in which Simplicior is of senoit^s im-
portance for the reconstruction, would be a rare one. This
thesis I have tested on the Parallel Specimens in H08. 13,
and find that it holds good. Not a single word of the original,
as I reconstructed it without the use of any Simplicior text
but Kielhom-Biihler, had to be changed because of the read-
ings of Simplicior manuscripts there quoted.
General plan of Simplicior. — Like the Hitopade^ia, this text
handles the original rather freely. It keeps the five books of
the original, but makes considerable alterations in their con-
tents. To begin with, it makes all five of more nearly equal
length. In the original, Books IV and V are very short. Sim-
plicior makes them about as long as the others. It transfers
^ Hertel, 12, p. IS. TMa statement seems to me to be proved quite
co-nelusively by tke Parallel Specimens, IIOS. 18. As to the further statement,
op. cU. p, 14, that ** the text of the H-class seems to me, on the whole, to
he the more original one ”, I have no means of verifying it. It hardly seems
demonstrated by the small amount of material at my disposal.
“ Textus Simplicior
29
to Book IV several of the stories of Book III, and inserts
several new stories in Book IV. And most of its Book V is
new. Moreover, it makes Story V. 2 of the original (The Bar-
ber who killed the Monks) the frame-story of Book V, and
emboxes within it the frame-story of the original Book V
(Brahman and Mongoose), altering it at the same time. It also
makes radical changes in the frame-stories of Books III and
IV, so that they resemble the originals only in a general way.
The same is true of some of the emhoxt stories of Simplicior.
And it adds a number of new stories in the first three books,
as well as in the last two.*— On the immediate archetype of
Simplicior, and its relation to the Tantrakhyayika, see below,
pages 31 ff., 36 f.
Extent to which Simplicior preserves the original text. — In
spite of these extensive alterations, Simplicior retains to a con-
siderable extent not only the general sense of the original,
but even its exact language. It must be used with caution,
but can by no means be neglected in the reconstruction, Hertel
says:^^ As for the single stories, he [the^ author of Simplicior]
not only altered their wording throughout, but also their pur-
port.” It seems to me that this is a serious exaggeration. In
many individual prose sentences (not to mention stanzas) it
preserves nearly, if not quite, the exact language of the ori-
ginal. Many of the stories are told in a manner substantially
as close to the original as in the other versions. All that I
should wish to say, as a general characterization, is that on
the whole Simplicior is less faithful to the general sense of the
original than any of the other versions previously dealt wnth,
and that it is on the whole less faithful to the precise language
of the original than any of the other mainly prosaic recen-
sions. I find that it is much less faithful in preserving the
verses of the original than the prose (as to its genei'al sense,
at least). This is curious, since it is by no means averse to
stanzas; it inserts an enormous number of unoriginal stanzas.
Yet it gives us only about one-tliird of the stanzas of the ori-
ginal, while it has at least the general sense of probably two-
thirds of the original prose. It is noteworthy that its fideli^
2** nos, 12, p. 11,
30
Chapter II: The materials
to the original decreases as the work progresses. Its innovations
becorne more markt in the third, fourth, and fifth books. It
preserves the sense of probably four-fifths, or very nearly as
much, of the original prose of Books I and II,* while in tlie
last three hooks the proportion sinks to not much more than
one-half. Infidelities to the original consist partly in omissions,
but more often, as regards the prose, in substitutions. Many
of tliese substitutions are undoubtedly deliberate, tlio usually
unsuccessful, attempts to improve the story. But many others
are doubtless due to mere carelessness or indifference.
Of the stories which I believe to he original, Simplicior
contains all but three and it contains a remote variant of
one of these in a different position.
Secondajy additions in Simplicior. — These have been perhaps
sufficiently described already. Most striking is the enormous
number of inserted verses, despite the fact that Simplicior
leaves out approximately two-tliirds of the verses of the original.
How many of these were composed by the author of Simplicior,
or his immediate archetype, it is hard to say; undoubtedly
many, and probably most of them were taken from other
sources, not belonging to the Paucatantra tradition. Insertions
in the prose text of the stories are also not rare, and some-
times very lengthy. Tih^ exceed m importancq^ those that are
found in any other, vetsion me, except P^n^hhadra,
which used Simplicior as a source.
Purmabhadra (abbreviated Pnb^^We are on much surer
ground regarding the text of this, the second Jainistic recen-
^ It iB, therefore, agpain an exagg^eraiion when Hertel says {Pa^c. p. 70):
** die Jaina-Rezensionen Itxlrzen ihre Yorlage bzw. Vorlagen niclit, sondern
erweitem sie,’’ Tiiis is doubtless true as a general proposition, but certainly
not as sn absolute rule. It is, however, true, as Hertel says (1. c.), that
Simplicior goes back to an approximately complete version of the work,
not to an abbrevfafion such as the SouthOm PaUcatantra.
^ These are IL 4 (Deer’s Former Captivity, really only an incident in
the h-ame-story of Book H, cf. page 2C, note 21), III. 7 (Brahman, Thief
and Ogre), and HI. 10 (Progs ride Serpent), A remote variant of the last-
named appears as Simplicior IV. 1.
Edition: Tim Pamehaiwnira in the Recension, mlled FanchMj^onaka ...
of,. , Piirnabhadra. Critically edited ... by Dr. Johannes Hertel. Cambridge,
1908. (Harvard Oriental Series 11.) An introduction and critical apparatus
Simplicior — Ptlrnabliadra
31
sion of the Pancatantra, which has been shown by Hertel's
researches to have been composed probably in the year 1199 a.b,
by the Jain monk Pur^iabhadra. The text of this version seems
to be in very satisfactory shape; there is little doubt that as
printed by Hertel it comes very close to the manuscript of
the author. The differences in the oldest manuscripts are, in
Hertel’s opinion, insignificant.
General plan of Pnrnabhadra: his two main sources, Tantra-
kliya3rika and Simplicior. — It is quite clear that the most of
Pur^abhadra’s text presents the aspect of a mosaic of the texts
of the Tantrnkhyayika and Simplicior-— or of texts closely re-
sembling these two ^ as we have them. This much is sufficiently
indicated hy a glance at Hertel’s Parallel Specimens in H(}S,
vol. 13; for they are quite typical of the most of the work.
It is perhaps even more strikingly proved by the fact, which I
shall show below (page Ilf.), that in a number of places tbe
mosaic-work is done so unskillfully that we find in POrna-
bhadra two different versions of the same passage, one copied
from the TantrakhyUyika and the other from Simplicior (or
from a closely similar source in each case). It appears that
PQr^abhadra kept before him copies of these two main sour-
ces, and for the most part literally followed one or the other,
as seemed best to him. As to general plan, TantrakhyEyika
and Simplicior differ little in Books I and 11. Their principal
differences appear in Books III, IV, and V, and in these I
think that pGr^ahliadra uniformly followed the general plan
of his Simplicior archetype, which I call the “ Ur-Simplicior.”
This “ Ur-Simplicior ” differed from our Simplicior text in
one important respect. We have seen that the frame^story of
Book III is wholly changed in our Simplicior, and tihat a number
of tbe emboxt stories of Book III are transposed to Book IV.
In the “ XJr-Simplicior,” which PUrnabhadra follows, apparently
only part of this alteration had taken place. The first part of
the frame is altered, and the fir^t emboxt story (As$ in Pan-
ther’s, or Tiger’s, Skin) transposed to Book IV. But the later
to ttis Tolume appwod in HOS. 12 (19^2^ ajad a ©ompanloa ^
parallel spoeimens in HOS. 13 (1912). A ae«an tsrmnalatiom
FaUcatan^am (tesdus omalwr)^ by Riebard Scbmidt, appearei at
(undated; publisht 1901).
32
Chapter II: The materials
part of the frame — the consultation of the owHdng with his
ministers — is retained substantially as in the original; and sto-
ries 6, 8, and 9 of the original Book III remain in Book III,
and are not transposed to Book IV, as they are in our Sim-
plicior. That this is the case, and that Purnabhadra’s superior
originality as compared with our Simplicior is not due to liis
following the Tantrakhyayika or any other version, seems to
me to be made pix)bable by the following facts. First, Purna-
bhadra agrees mainly with our Simplicior thruout Book IV,
and differs from it most strikingly in the omission of just
these three stories which originally belonged to Book III.
Secondly, and much more compellingly: in the entire text of
the stories III. 6 (Old Man, Young Wife and Thief), III. 8
(Cuckold Carpenter), and in the latter part of III. 9 (Mouse
Maiden), Puri^ahhadra agrees almost word for word with the
text of Simplicior. (See my Critical Apparatus for the evidence.)
It is obvious that he must have got these entire stories (ex-
cept the first part of III. 9, in which he follows Tantrakhyayika)
from a Simplicior manuscript. But he places the stories, not
in the place to which all our manuscripts of Simplicior have
transposed tliem, in Book IV, but in their original place, in
Book III, where all other versions including Tantrakhyayika
have them. It ^ seems to me hardly likely that he would have
done this if he had used our text of Simplicior. Had he done
so, he would probably have given these Tories either in the
position in which Simplicior has them, or in the wording in
which Tantrakhyayika has them. I can scarcely think that he
would have followed the order of Tantrakhyayika, hut gone
to the fourth book of a version of Simplicior and extracted
from it the language of the corresponding stories found tbere.®^
I differ in this reg^ard from Hertel, who believes that PUr^ahhadra
used manuscripts of both of the subrecensions of Simplicior, “H’’ and “cr”,
but not an older Simplicior text to which both go back. The former propo-
sition he bases on the fact that at times POrvabhadra agrees with each of
the two subrecensions, in turn, in superior readings. This would be adequately
explained by the supposition which I make, that he used a text much older
and naore original than either subrecension. The second proposition, which
denies my assumption, he bases (HOS. 12, p. 14) on the circumstance that
“ in some places either the H-class or the o-class is more original than
Pariiabhadra’s text.” He does not quote the passages which he has in mind.
Plan and sources of Pilnjabhadra
33
Except to this extent, PQrpabhadra agrees quite closelj with
our Simplicior in Books III, IV, and V. In Books I and II
But I would suggest that such cases are doubtless due to aecomdary and
independent variations made by Punpabhadra himself. Of such there is no
lack. Or, some of them may be due to Par^iablmdra’s use of another version
than Simplicior — whether Tautrakbyayika, or some other. Prom such out*
side sources, which we know he used, be may at times have borrowed
readings that are secondary in comparison with eitlier Simplicior subrecen-
sion, or both.
It may be of interest to note here that there are some later Hindu
versions of the Paficatantra, based mainly on Simplicior or Pur^ahhadra
or both, which are closer to the original Pahcatantra than either of them
in one respect, at least, namely, that the story of the Ass in the Panther’s
(or Tiger’s) Skin appears in its original place, as the first emboxt story of
Book UI, and is not transferred to Book IV as in both Simplicior and
Pdrpabhadra. (Some of these versions repeat the story in Book IV, where
Simplicior and Ptlrnabhadra have it.) Among these versions are: the manu-
script (Hmrtel, Pa^., p..l04), Eatnasundara’s KathSkallola {of^cU*
p, VaccharSja’s PaficSkhyana Caupal (op. oi^. p. 199 fi.), and Hegha-
vijaya’s FaScMiy^oddhara (op. <M, p. 105 C). This naight seem to suggest
that they used a stall older form of the Simplicier than the one need by
Ptrpabhadra, and that in the Simplicior used by them even the^r#i part
of Book III was retained essentially in its original form, tlnfortunately the
data furniaht by Hertel (which are all that I have to judge by) are not
sufficient to make it possible to decide this (Question definitely. But such in-
formation as he furnishes is not favorable to that assumption. On the contrary,
it seems to indicate that these lat© recensions got their version of the story
of the Ass in the Panther’s Skin directly or indirectly from a different
recension, not belonging to the Simplicior tradition at all. In one case this
different recension was certainly the TantrSkhySyikaj and it was perhaps
the same in the case of the o&ers- hTamelyi.the tet of thfr particular story
as found in the manuscript ^ B' ^ is by Cartel, I'6. 517 £
Bow it hafpens.Hnst ^1? p,arll«»la|p story ,i» 'told In very different in
the sevend (M%«d Afpamtus). BO'tably iite dsin
versions (SlmpEdlor and Ptr!^bhadra)| the ap^einf very el^osely with 'saA
other, are Morent^from Tanirikhy'i^ia^ But ih# “1^
agrees so closely with the Taatrtfchyiyiica ,(in i^ito of v^bsl ‘fSrlatoi#}
that there can he no doubt that it got its text from the m
suggesih. (The other Sanskrit texts are sufi&^en^y different to proven ^at
they could not have been concerned.) It will be obvious to imy<»e Ww
cares to examine the text of E,” in oomphrlsorn wi^ the readlnp 'Oif,
versions quoted in my Critical Apparatus, that itaprimiMy
are Simplicior and Pfin^abhadra, int^olated thla parfbular
TantrSkbytyika manusenript, directly or indirectly. On the of
the story in “ E,” aee the next paragraph but one.
PaiieiitttiitJm. II. ^
34
Chapter II: The -materials
he tends perhaps rather to agree with the general plan of
Tantrakhyayika than with our Simplicior (but the differences
As to the other late versions referred to, the only one whose version
of this story is fornisht by Hertel is that of Meghavijaya (partial text and
complete analysis in ZBMO. 57, 6S9fP.). According to Hertel, Meghavijaya
used as his source a version which depended on Vaccharaja, and the latter
in turn was dependent on Ratnasundara. If this is the case, Ratnasundara’s
version of the story of the Ass in the Panther’s (or Tiger’s) Skin would
presumably decide the c[uestion of the ultimate origin of the story as found
in these three recensions. Hertel does not quote either Ratnasundara’s or
VaccharSja’s text of the story; and Meghavijaya’s text is a drastic abbreviation,
consisting of only a few lines. It is not enuf like any of the older versions
to make it possible to decide its origin. It does, indeed speak of a tiger’s
{’o^&ghror) skiij, rather than a panther’s agreeing to that extent
with Simplicior and Pilr:^;iabhadra ; but in this respect its prose story may
have been influeust by the catch-verse; and, as I am about to show, this
would not decide the question.
The catch-verse in these four late versions needs more careful con-
sideration. In the ms. it reads:
suciraih hi caran nityaih ^reyah sasyam abuddhiman
vyaghracarmapratichanno vSkkrte rasabbo hatah.
In Meghavijaya it reads exactly in the same way but for the following
variations, all of which, there is reason to believe, are secondary, and some
of which are obvious corruptions: b, ire$ihmh iasyami sa (!) huddhimam.\ c,
d, (I). The verse as given by Ratnasundara and Vaccha-
rSja is not quoted in full by Hertel, but he tells us {Pa^. p. 201) that
they are like Meghav^aya in having the corruptions sasymi (or Sa^) m
bvtddhmidsfi^ and vydkk^te (or It appears that we may safely assume
that all four of these recensions have the catch-verse essentially as in “E.”
Let us examine the catch-verse in Ihe older Sanskrit recensions. The
TantrakhySyika has this form:
suciraih hi caran nityaiii grl§me sasyam abuddhiman
dvXpicarmapratIchanho vl[kk|tad rUsabho hatah.
The Southern Paficatantra agrees except for °parichanno in c and vagdo^ad
in d. The Nepalese text and the Hitopade§a agree with Southern Pailcatantra
but also read (Hit, Mtlller k^etre) for g-HpriCy and Sasyam (N corrupt)
for saPf and gardahho for r&sahho. The Jain versions (Simplicjor and
PUr^iabhadra), however, have a wholly different first half verse:
suguptaih rak§yamap,o ’pi darSayan damiiam vapufi.
In the second half verse they agree with Tantrakhyayika except that
they read tyS>gl)T(P for dfcfjpi®, and >i}dkkrU, Consistently with the former
change, they speak in the following prose story of a tiger’s skin, not a
panther’s skin. All the other versions make it a panther’s {dm>pi-) skin,
Plan and sources of Pflrriabhadra
36
in these hooks afe not very great, and possibly the Simplicior
text which he used may have been more like Tantrakhyayika,
except Southern Paficatantra and Hitopade^a, the former of which once,
and the latter reg'ularly, also make it a tig^er’s skin in the prose story, tho
readings in the catch-verse (did they take dvlpl- in the sense of
“tiger,” a sense attributed to it in Hindu lexicons? SP in the prose
elsewhere uses dvlpi-\).
From these facts it seems clear that: (1) The ms. “ E,'*’ whose prose text
follows TantrSfchyayika exclusively (and~*NB.— always has iMpP, not
vydghraP)^ has a contaminated form of the verse, in which the first half
agrees with the older versions including Tantr. (except that it agrees with
Nep* and Hit. in ireyalj, for an interesting but probably secondary
agreement, since Southern Paflc., the nearest relative of Nep. and Hit,,
agrees with Tantr., indicating that Nep. and Hit. go back to a version which
bad this reading) ,* but in the second half “ E ” agrees with Simplicior and
Purnabhadra. We must remember that the catch-verse to this favorite and
widespread fable was doubtless a familiar proverb, and that slight variations
in it may mean only that a particular redactor had heard a different
version quoted orally. So the variations in the second half may be ex-
plained;— a.nd even the inconsistency (\>ydglvra : d/aUpi) between the verse
and the prose fable has a parallel in the Hitopadesa. But the difference in
the first half is too markt to be accidental. This first half must certainly
have been drawn by “ E ” ’s source from a text close to the TantrSkhylyika
—and not from the Jain versions. That is, the first half verse was doubtless
taken from the same source from which “ E ” drew the prose text of the
fable. (The agreement with Nep. and Hit. in reading ^reya^ is, as I said,
doubtless an accidental coincidence; “ E ” ’s prose text, at least, shows no
relation at all to the SP-Nep.-Hit. group of versions.) The second half it
may have contaminated from the Jain versions which were its principal
sources.
(2) But the more important point is this. From HertePs statements,
Katnasundara, Vaecharaja, and Meghav^aya present practically the same
form of the catch-verse — in both halves^ — that “ E ” does. It seems not
overbold to guess that fhey have a common source. And if they have a
common source for the catch- verse, it would not be strange if they had a
common source for the prose text too. But, as we have seen, the pros©
text of E ” unquestionably goes back, directly or indirectly, to an inteis
polation from the TantrlkhySyika. This is evidently the reason for th©
position of the story in “ E,” as 8tory 1 of Book HI, instead of in Book IV*
where Simplicior and Punciabhadra have it. Since Ratnaaundara etc. have
the story in the same position, may we not provisionally guess that the
same circumstance has the same explanation, and that these versiosae too
go back directly or indirectly to the TantrEkhylyika in this story? Of
course, this can only be a provisional hypothesis. But at least there is at
present no reason for supposing that these versions point t© a form of the
36
Chapter II: The materials
of. the preceding paragraph), while including most of the
interpolated stories of both Tantrakhyayika and Simplicior and
a goodly number of others.
The “ Ur-Tantrakhyayika,” source of the ** tJr-Simplicior ” and
the Tantrakhyayika. — These two principal sources of Pur^ia-
bhadra appear to go back directly to a common arclietype,
which I call for convenience the “ Ur-Tan trakhyayika.” It
differed from the original Pancatantra in having at least three
interpolated stories, and an uncertain number of minor expan-
sions and additions of both prose and verses. Whether it also’
contained omissions is necessarily uncertain, since even when
such are found in common in Tantrakhyayika and the Jain
versions, we cannot he sure that they have not occurred in-
dependently. In any case they were few in number. — That the
Tantrakhyayika and the Ur-Simplicior ” are sister-versions,
and that neither was derived directly from the other, seems
“ Ur-Simplicior ” in which the transposition of the story to Book IV had
not yet taken place.
On pag^e 189 of Hertel’s PaikcLtantra he mentions another point in
which Ratnasundara agrees with Tantrakhyayika j but he there expresses
the opinion that the agreement is not due to borrowing, and states that he
baa found no ia:aces of the n^e of TantriCkbyfyilca by Ratnasnndara. Tins
opinion deserTes weighty and mo more hesitant regarding the suggestion
made above. Yet it cah of courso not be regarded as final. Only the text
of Ratnasundara’s story can decide the matter. It is unfortunate that Hertel
failed to present it
** TantrSkbyEyika 1. 8 (Blue Jackal), I. 13 (Jackal outwits Camel and
Tiion), H. 4 (Weaver Somilaka). These occur only in Tantr., Simpl,, PQni.
and (the first two) in Ksemendra, which doubtless borrowed them from the
Tantrakhyayika (see page 25), There are good reasons for denying that
any of them belonged to the original Pailcatantra. I believe that the “ Ur-
TantrltkhySyika also contained HI. 11 of Tantr. |3 (Appendix 3 in edition;
P’ox and Talking Gave), IV. 3 of Tantr. p (Appendix 4 in edition: Potter
as Warrior), and perhaps III. 11 (Old Hansa). None of these are found in
Tantr^khySyika a; hut this does not prove them late, since a omitted also
the original story of the Old Man, Young Wife and Thief (P III. 6, edition
Appendix 2). The first two are found in the same place in the Jain versions,
the last in Pdnpahhadra in a different place. None of the three occur in
any other vision except (the last two) in Ksemendra. — It is very possible
that the “ Ur-Tan trikhyayika ” contained still other secondary stories^ the
lack of any particular story in either our Tantralthyayika or one . or both
Jain versions may he due to omission.
Sources of Pflrijabhadra
37
indicated by the fact that each preserves features of the original
which the other lacks. This might, to he sure, be explained
by the hypothesis that one or the other is a contaminated
version, like Pur^iabhadra. That is just what Hertel does
assume in his “ genealogical table ” of Pancatantra versions;
namely, he regards Simplicior as a contamination of Tantra*
khyayika with another recension. I see no basis for this opinion
and consider it most improbable. Hertel has, in fact, made
no attempt to prove it, so far as I have been able to dis-
cover.
Purnabhadra’s other source or sources. — But PUr^abhadra
seems to have used still other Pancatantra versions, or at least
one other, not closely related to either Tantrakhylyika or
Simplicior. For we find that PGirg-abhadra lias a number of
features o£ the original in common with other versions— the
Southern Pancatantra, the Pahlavi, or the Brhatkatlia versions —
which are lacking, or are replaced by different features, in
both TantrEkhySyika and Simplicior. In some such cases we
even find TantrEkhy^yika and Simplicior agreeing in a secon-
dary trait, against Pilri;iahhadra and other versions. We may ,
assume in such cases that TantrakhyS-yika and Simplicior found
these secondary alterations in their common archetype, the
“ Ur-Tantrakhyayika.'’ If so, apparently Purnabhadra must
have derived his more original readings from a different source.
What was that source, or were there several such? We can
only vaguely guess. There seems to he no sufficient reason to
suppose tliat Plir^iahhadra used any of tlie other versions which
we now possess, such as the Southern Pancatantra or the
Brhatkatha versions; nor their immediate archetypes, such m
the Sanskrit original of tihe Pahlavi. For his occasional agree-
ments with them are not favorable to such an assumption.
They are usually features which seem to have pertained to
the original Paficatantra. In a few cases they may be merely
due to some accident (c. g. the occasional independent insertion
of a stanza familiar to different redactors as a gofltgeltas
Wort,” or a similar twist which happens to have been fiven
independently to a prose passage). When one text hte used
another, or when both go back to a secondary archetyfe, it
is usually quite easy to detect the fact, from uniimstaiabie
38
Chapter II: The materials
evidence. {Cf. p. 49 ff.) Such evidence consists in extensive and
markt agreements in secondary matters, that is in features
which clearly depart from the original Pancatantra. Evidence
of this kind exists to establish the interdependence of Tantra-
khyayika^ Simplicior, and Pur^iabhadra, and of the Southern
Pancatantra, Nepalese Pancatantra, and Hitopadesa; and the
dependence of Ksemendra on Tantrakhyayika. We do not find
evidence of such relations between Purnabhadra and any known
version except Simplicior and Tantrakhyayika. We must there-
fore provisionally assume that Purnabhadra had no closer
relations to any other known version. But since he shows a
number of original features at points where Tantrakhyayika
and Simplicior agree on unoriginal ones, it seems to follow
that he probably used some independent offshoot of the original
which is inaccessible to us. He may even have used more than
one such, for aught we can tell. But it seems not humanly
probable that he used many more than the three versions
which we have now assumed as his sources, — simply because
to do so would have given him more trouble than a Hindu
, redactor is likely to have taken.
Value of Purnabhadra for the reconstruction. — While Purna-
bhadra was, therefore, a contaminated version, this does not
mean that his text cannot be used for the reconstruction. On
the contrary, it is extremely useful. To be sure, we need to
remember his dependence on Tantrakhyayika and Simplicior,
which means that agreements between these texts prove nothing
for the originaL On the other hand, however, we have seen
that there is reason to believe that he used not our Simplicior,
but an older Ur-Simplicior; ” so that we can improve on our
text of Simplicior hy reference to Purnahhadt^a. The same seems
to be true, only in a less degree, of his relations to Tantra-
khyayika; the Tantrakhyayika text which he used was at
least better than our Tantrakhyayika manuscripts in many
details, so that Hertel occasionally emends Tantrakhyayika’s
text on the basis of Pcirnabhadra^s readings (and might with
profit have done so more frequently, I think). But it is when
Purnabhadra agrees with other versions against Tantrakhyayika
and, Simplicior that his value is greatest. For in such cases
the general presumption is that he has used his third,* to us
Pur;iabliadra’e value far reconstruction
39
unknown, source; and that such agreements establish the text
of the original Pancatantra.
Extent to wHcli Ptlrnabhadra preserves the origin^ text — I
estimate that Ptlrnabhadra preserves — from one source or an-
other— at least the general sense of not far from ninety per-
cent of the prose text of the original, and seventy percent of
the verses. The reason for the much poorer preservation of
the verses is that Purnabhadra follows Simplicior to such a
considerable extent; Simplicior^ as we have seen, preserves
only a minority of the original verses. The exact language of
the original is preserved in PHr^abhadra perhaps more exten-
sively than in any other version except Tantrakhyayika; but
this is largely due to the fact that Puri^abhadra follows Tantra-
khyayika so extensively. However, it should be remembered
that even in sections where PUr^^abhadra appears to depend
on Tantrikhyayika, his text is often superior to our Tantra-
khyayika manuscripts, presumably because he used a much
older and more perfect manuscript than any that we have.—
Every story of the original is preserved in PHruabhadra ; and
all are in the order of the original except Story III. 1, which
is transposed to Book IV following Simplicior, and the stories
of Book V, which are also arranged as in Simplicior,
Secondary additions in Purnabhadra. — These are more nume-
rous and extensive than in any other version used by me.
They include, to begin with, nearly all the inserted stories
found in both Tantrakhyayika and Simplicior, and a conside-
rable number of others that are found in neither of these, his
two principal sources. They also include very many, and fre-
quently very long, additions and expansions, both prose and
verses. Many of these are taken from PUri^abhadra’s several
sources; but not a few seem to be original with him. Ptr^a-
bhadra’s text is not only synthetic but rationalming. Hm aim
is to improve on his sources. When he notes a feature which
he thinks needs improvement, his general tendency is not to
leave it out, but to add something which will satisfy his tense
of what is fitting. An interesting instance is the way he hanil«
Tantrlkhyayika’s allusion to the tala of the ‘‘Butter-blkd
Brahman;” see page 177.
40
Chapter 11: The materials
The Pahlavi and its Desoenbants
The Pahlavi translation (abbreviated Pa),^ — A Persian jjhy-
sician named Burzoe (also spelled Burzuyeh, and in other
ways), living* under the patronage of King Chosrau Anosliarwan
(these names are also variously spelled; his dates are given
as 531 — 579 a. b.), made a translation into Pahlavi of a
number of Indian stories of various provenance, the chief of
■which was a version of the Pancatantra. He seems to have
given to his entire work the name ^^Karataka and Damanaka”
(to use the Sanskrit forms of the names)^ after the two jackals
who play such an important role in the first book of the PaSca-
tantra. We need not concern ourselves with the parts of the
work which were drawn from other sources^ such as the Maha-
bhfirata. It appears that, for some reason or other, BurzQe’s
translation did not include the Introduction to the Pahcatantra.
Otherwise it included the entire Pancatantra except for three
stories that seem to have been omitted (II. 4, Deer’s Former
Captivity; III. 1, Ass in Panther’s Skin; and V. 2, Barber
who killed the Monks), It transposed the story of the Three
Fish (I. 11 of the original), making it the seventh story of
Book L It also contained one story not found in the original,
namely the Traaeheroas Bawd (I. 3 c of the Pahlavi).*^ Other-
wise the Pancatantra is in a way which shows that
the Sanskrit text which the translator used was an extremely
ancient one (which is indeed indicated by the date of the
translation), and was very close to tlie original in most details
as well as in the generaP sense of the stories. (I refer to it
as tlie ‘^IJr-Pa.”) It suffered, of course, in the translation.
Hertel is very severe on the translator, whom he accuses of
This story appears in TantrlkliySyika a, as III. 5, in a different place
from the Pablayi, and quite differently told. It is undoubtedly a secondary
interpolation made independently in both places; nevertheless the Pahlavi
translator may well have found it at the place where he has it in the
Sanskrit version which he used. This is not disproved by HertePs argument
ZDMQ. 69. 116 for the Sanskrit catch-verse to Story I. 3 may easily have
been so rewritten as to include a reference to this as well as to the other
“ selhstverschuldete UnfEIle The secondary character of the story is proved
not by this, but by the fact that all Sanskrit versions agree in not having
the story at this point.
The Pahlavi
41
rank ignorance of Sanskrit, We must remember, however,
that we do not possess the Pahlavi itself, but only secondary
and tertiary offshoots. It is true tkat they present the original
text often in a very distorted form. But it is certain that
many of the distortions are due to later retranslators. This
can be seen by comparing the Old Syriac with the Arabic
and its descendants; frequently one or the other comes quite
close to the original Sanskrit while its rivals are very remote
and secondary. If we had even the original Pahlavi, not to
mention the Sanskrit on which it was based, I think we should
probably have a closer approach to the original Pancatantra
than we now possess (allowing, of course, for the change of
language). Only the order, especially of the verses, and to
some extent of the prose sentences and paragraphs of the ori-
ginal, seems to have become confused even in the Pahlavi
(tho in this respect too its descendants have made tlie con-
fusion considerably greater). It may be added that the same
is true of every Sanskrit version we have, tho usually not to
a like degree; and that therefore there is no reason to doubt
that at least a part of this confusion in order goes back to
Ur-Pa, the Sanskrit archetype of the PahlaAi.
Immediate offshoots of the Pahlavi, — Unhappily the Falilavi
translation is lost, along with its Sanskrit original. We haA^e
to rely for our knowledge of this extremely important stream
of Paiicatantra tradition on its offshoots. Probably the most
important of these is the Old Syriac (abbreviated Sy), made
by a certain Bud, apparently about 670 a, Tho known
First edited and translated by G. Bickell, with an introduction by
Theodor Benfey (Leipzig, i876). This translation was a very careditabl© work
in its day, and occasionally is useful even now as a check on the following,
which has in general superseded it: Kalila utid Dknna* J^ruch tmd
Von Friedrich Schulthess. Berlin, 1911. The translation of Schulthess has
valuable critical and comparative notes, with additions by Hertel, and with
marginal references to the TantrEkhylyika (and occasionally other Sanskrit
versions) added by the same scholar. It is thus made convenient for refers
ring to the Sanskrit, Unfortunately Schulthess has been too much iufiuen^t,
occasionally, by the impression derived from Hertel, that tho Tantr^hylyika
is the original Paficatantra, An instance in which this impression has led
him into a false emendation of his text, as it seems to me, is shown in his
handling of vs 72 of Kapitel d (our reconstruction III vs 99); see my Oritical
42
Chapter II: The materials
only from copies of a single corrupt and fragmentary manu-
script, it contains nearly the whole of the Pancatantra text
as found in the Pahlavi (there are only two or three lacunae
of consequence, due to defects in the unique manuscript).
The Pahlavi was also translated into Arabic by 'Abdallah
ibn al-Moqaffa' about 750 a. d., under the title “ Kalilah and
Dimnah.” According to information kindly furnisht me by
Professor M. Sprengling of the University of Chicago, we
learn from Arabic tradition that at least one — possibly several
— other translations of the Pahlavi into Arabic were made;
these are not recorded in HertePs Pancatantra,^^ The work
became very popular in Arabic literature and there are now
in existence numerous manuscripts and a number of printed
texts of it. These differ very widely from one another. Equally
wide differences are found in the numerous translations and
retranslations from the Arabic to which reference will be made
presently. It is not yet known to what extent these differences
are due to editing or to secondary changes in Abdallah’s text
and in translations thereof, and to what extent they may be
due to the influence of different translations from the Pahlavi.
It is presumed that most of the Arabic manuscripts and editions,
and tiie translations therefrom, represent on the whole various
revisions of Abdallah’s work. For our purposes this difficult
problem is of little importance. For we can be certain that
all Arabic texts and offshoots, in so far as they contain matter
that represents the original Pancatantra, obtained that matter
directly or indirectly from the Pahlavi* translation; and it
makes little difference to us whether they derived it from
Abdallah’s translation or from some other Arabic rendering
of the Pahlavi. I use the term “Arabic” to denote collectively
all Arabic texts and descendants so far as they are accessible
ApiparatBs on this versa. Here Bickell seems to me to have been, nearer
1h.e truth. And this in not an isolated instance.
^ Professor 8prenglin|^ refers for his authority to Hadji Khalfa’s Bihlio-
I gra^lM Dictionary under “ Oalila et Dimna,” and to an-H^dim’s FihrUt,
1 p. 306, L Uf, Hadji Khalfe names as a second translator of the work from
5 Pahlavi into Arabic ^Abdallah ibn HilSI [elsewhere called ibn *Ali] al-Ahwdzi,
and dates his work a.h. 166 = a. ». 781/2. Little is known of this mati,
and his alleg-ed work is not definitely known to exist now.
The Arabic and its offshoots
43
to me (see below), without meaning to imply any theory as
to their relation to Abdallah’s translation or any others. Under-
stood in this sense, the Arabic is a more complete represen-
tatiye of the Pahlavi than the Old Syriac. Nevertheless^ the
Old Syriac contains some details which are omitted in all
texts and translations derived from the Arabic that are known
to me.^^
Qifshoots of the Pahlavi thru the Arabic, — The Old Syriac
version of the Pahlavi has left no known descendants. But
Arabic versions were translated and retranslated repeatedly
in very early times. In default of a critical edition and trans-
lation of any Arabic version itself, these early offshoots are
of great importance in establishing the sense of the Pahlavi.
I shall make no attempt to enumerate them; they are fully
described in the eleventh chapter of Hertel’s Fafieatantra. Here
I shall mention only a few of the more important ones, chiefly
such as I have used in the work of reconstruction.
Perhaps the oldest is a second Syriac version made in the
tenth or eleventh century, which has been made accessible in
an English translation by Keith-Falconer (Kalilah and JDimnah
or the Fables of Bidpai^ Cambridge, 1885). In the eleventh
century a Greek version entitled 2'i:e©avtV/)i; xal IxvTjXaTT;; was
made by one Symeon Seth; from it were made Latin, German,
and Slavonic versions. In the twelfth century one Nasrallah
translated the Arabic into Persian; his work served as a basis
for a later and better-known Persian version, the Anwari
Suhaili (called in English ^’Lights of Canopus”), which has
The first edition of any Arabic text was that by Sylvestre de Sacy,
Oalila et Dimna ou /aides de Bidpai, Paris, 1816. This is said to be a com-
posite and imperfect text, containing a contamination of several subrooensiona.
It has been translated into English (Knatchbull, Oxford, 1819; reprinted at
Cairo, 1905; a very loose and poor rendering), German (Wolff, Stuttgart,
1837; 2nd ed. 1839; a good rendering; also Holmboe and Hansen, Christiania,
1832), Prench, Danish, and Kussian. It is said by Arabists that the best
text yet printed is that of L. Cheikho (Beyrouth, 1905), which is based on
a single old manuscript; but this text is also imperfect, and needs to be
supplemented by others. Another well-known edition is that of Khalil al-
Jazidji, which is not rated highly by Arabic scholars. A critical edition of j
the Arabic, based on a thoro study of all available materials, is now being j
undertaken by Professor Sprengling of the University of Chicago.
44
Chapter II: The materials
been repeatedly translated into many languages of Europe and
Asia (English by Eastwick, Hertford 1854, and by Wollaston,
1877, 2nd ed. 1894).. The Arabic was rendered into Spanish
by an unknown author about 1251; this is a very valuable
version, which rests on an Arabic text closely related to
that used by Rabbi Joel in his Hebrew rendering. This latter
was composed in the twelfth century, and has been edited
with a French translation by J. Derenbourg, Paris 1881; Bibl.
de r&e. des hautes dt. 49 (this volume also contains an edition,
by Derenbourg, but no translation, of a later Hebrew trans-
lation from the Arabic, made by Jacob ben Eleazer in the
thirteenth century). Our text of Joel is unhappily fragmentary;
the entire first book is lost. We have however the complete
text of a Latin rendering of Joel, made by John of Capua
between 1263 and 1278, which was printed twice about 1480
and exists also in manuscripts of about the same age. One
of the early printed texts has been reprinted with valuable
notes by J. Derenbourg (Bibl de l’6c. des hautes dt. 72, Paris,
1887) . The Latin of John of Capua became famous in the
Middle Ages, and was rendered into Spanish, into German
{Buck der Beispiele der alien Weism^ by Anthonius von Pfor
or Pforr, pnblisht about 1480; an extremely popular work
in medieval Europe), and into Italian (by one Doni, printed
1562). Thm Italian version was the basis of . the earliest Eng-
lish descendant of the Pancatantra, by Sir -Thomas North
{The MeraM Pkilosophie of Doni^ London, 1570; reprinted
1601; mi latdy reprinted again by Joseph Jacobs, London,
1888) .
Use made of the PaMavi versions in the present work.~Gene-
rally speaking a clear agreement in sense between any des-
cendant of the Pahlavi and any of the Sanskrit versions raises
a Btrong presumption that we are dealing with a feature of the
original PaB^catant^aj since there is no evidence of. any secondary
Hertel toeatious on]y the edition of Clifford G. Alien, Macon (France),
.1906. Aceorain,^ to Solaiinde an earlier edition by Gayangos appeared at
Madrid in ISOO.. The edition used by me is that of Antonio G. Solalinde:
CalUa y.Dhmm Fdbnlas, Aniigua i^ersion 0(utdUtma, Madrid, 19175 h is
according to the editor, primarily on the editions of Allen and of
Alemany (Madrid, 1915).
Use of the Pahlavi in this work
45
agreements between the Pahlayi and any Sanskrit version.®^ The
number of purely accidental coincidences must in tlie nature of
things be limited. In default of the Pahlavi text, tlie‘ ideal desi-
deratum for use in such comparisons would he careful colla-
tions of both the Old Syriac and the Arabic texts. Schulthess^s
edition of the Old Syriac, supplemented hy his notes and hy
BickelPs edition, gives us all the matexual that can he hoped
for on that subject. Unfortunately we are not so well off as
to the Arabic, Of course no single Arabic version can be used
alone. However, my friend and former associate, Dr. W. N.
Brown, has prepared a rendering of Books II and IV of the
Pancatantra in their Arabic guise which I believe approaches
our requirements. It is primarily a rendering of Olieikho’s text
(see page 43, note 33), but with indications in the notes of all
possibly important variants in certain other Arabic editions
(especially Khalil’s) and in the principal offshoots of the Arabic.
It thus contains, we may be fairly sure, all evidence for the
reconstruction which could probably be extracted from any
of the known Arabic texts and descendants thereof. Brown’s
rendering of the Arabic for Pafic. Book II has appeared in
JA08. 42. 215 — 250. His Book IV is not yet publislit, but he
has kindly allowed me to use it and quote from it in manu-
script. For the other three books (Pancatantra I, III, and V)
I have been forced to rely almost exclusively on older and
less scientific translations, since my knowledge of Arabic is
not sufficient to make possible an independent use of Arabic
editions. I have relied principally on the Old Spanish (ed.
Solalinde), the Younger Syriac as translated by Keitli-Falconer,
the Latin of John of Capua and its original, Joel’s Hebrew
(so far as extant), and Wolff’s German translation (2nd ed.)
of the Arabic *as edited by De Sacy. Occasionally I have used
Symeon Seth’s Greek (which is less valuable for comparative
purposes because much freer than the versions named above),
and the AnwHri Suhaill in Eastwick’s English translation.
Extent to which the Pahlavi preserves the original text. — In
estimating the value of the Pahlavi’s evidence as to the original
See Chapter V for HertePs attempts to proye such, and my reasons for
disagreemg 'with him, Cf. also page 49 fP. on general methods of fixing the
original.
46
Chapter II: The materials
text, we must bear in mind the allowances that have to be
made for translation and retranslation and re-retranslation. From
the Pahla-vi versions alone we cannot often hope to infer the
precise language of the original Sanskrit. The most we can
hope, in general, is that they will show us that something
approximately similar to a particular verse or prose sentence
was contained in tlieir Sanskrit archetype. They show us that,
to an extent which we must acknowledge with deep gratitude.
I find evidence that at least some parts of fully eighty percent
of the original prose sentences^ and that more than seventy
percent of the original verses, were found in the Pahlavi. (The
percentages in either the Syriac or the Arabic alone would be
somewhat lower; they would be lower in the Syriac than in
the Arabic.) The reason for the smaller percentage of verses
px'eserved is doubtless in part the greater difficulty of the
language of the Sanskrit verses, which made successful trans-
lation harder; and in part the fact that the sententious verses
could more easily drop out without leaving an appreciable
gap. The accuracy and completeness of the translation varies
greatly in different parts of the work, as well as in the different
versions. Often it is so close that it could pass for an almost
word-for-word rendering of the original Sanskrit, as indicated
by the extant Sanskrit versions. On the whole I can say that
I am honestly surprised at the frequency of such cases, in one
Pahlavi version or another.
I have already mentioned the fact that the Pahlavi omits
only three emboxt stories of the original, besides the Intro-
ductioiL All other stories are preserved in both Old Syriac and
Arabic, except that a defect in the manuscript of the Syriac
leaves us, quite accidentally, without its version of Stoi^y 1. 2
(Jackal and Drum).
Sdoondaiy addUdons in the Pahlavi. — These are few in the
sections paralleling the Pancatantra. In this respect the Pahlavi
rivals the Southern Pancatantra as a faithful reflex of the ori-
ginal, and far surpass^ TantrK.khyayika and the Jain versions.
It is distinctly surpast only by Somadeva. have seen that
it includes only one unoriginal story (L 3 c, Treacherous Bawd).
It includes also a small number of verses (that is, of passages
which obviously represent sententious verses of the Sanskrit;
Secondary additions in Pahlavi
47
for the Pahlavi renderings are of course in prose) which at
least appear in no Sanskrit version, and most of which were
therefore prohablj not in the original Pancatantra. It doubtless
contained likewise a number of prose insertions and expansions.
But it is harder to judge of this point, because most of the
existing Pahlavi versions show a strong tendency to expand
on their own account. Expansions common to the Old Syriac
and the Arabic are not very numerous; and it is only these
which we can with confidence attribute to the Pahlavi.
TABLE
SHOWING INTERRELATIONS OP OLDER PANGHATANTRA VERSIONS
48
Indicates hypothetical versions. Italics indicate translations into other languages than Sanskrit.
CHAPTER in
METHODS EMPLOYED IN THE RECONSTRUCTION
Purpose of tMs chapter. — In this chapter I shall present a
statement of the methods which I hare workt out for estab-
lishing' the text of the original Pancatantra, positively and
negatively, together with a brief statement of the reasons
why wc may be confident that there really taas an original
Paiicatantra, — that we are not eliasing a will-o'-the-wisp. De-
tailed illustrations will be furnisht in later chapters. Since
nothing can be decided finally about the original until we
are sure what versions are secondarily interrelated^ I shall
first take up the methods by which w^e may hope to decide
that question.
Three ways of proving secondary interrelationship. — By ''se-
condary interrelationship ” between two versions, I mean de-
scent, in whole or in part, from a common archetype later than
the original Paneatantra, and secondary in comparison with it.
There are not more than three ways in which such descent
can he proved, in my opinion; and of these I regard only
the first two as entirely conclusive. A combination of the
first two is desirable; and it is indeed a fact that these two
generally go together, more or less, tho either may he in
individual instances more important than tho other. The three
methods are:
1. Proof that the versions in question agree in showing a
not inconsiderable number of important and striking features
which cannot reasonably be supposed to have belonged to
the original Paiicatantra, nor to have been added indepen-
dently in the same place in the several versions where they
occur. Secondarily inserted stories are the best, and almost the
only conclusive, sort of evidence that can be considered under
tliis head. For in the case of a stan5?;a, or a minor motive or
Edgerton, Paacatantra, II. 4
50 Chapter IIIj Methods employed in the reconstruction
feature in a story, appearing in several versions, it is easier
as a rule to suppose either that it belonged to the original,
or that it was added independently in more than one version.
It is much harder to suppose that two redactors should, by
mere cliance and independently of each other, have added tlie
same story at the same place in the text, unless indeed the
original text contained a definite reference to the story in
question. In actual fact no such case occurs in the Pahcatantra.
There is no instance, in my opinion, of the insertion of a se-
condary story at the same place (this qualification is important)
in independent versions. At the same time it is usually easy
to find grounds for doubting the originality of stories that
have been secondarily inserted. — By this method I think it is
possible to prove the interrelationship of e, g, Tantrakhyayika
and the Jain versions, and of Tantrakhyayika and Ksemendra,
which have a number of secondary stories in common, occur-
ring at tlie same points in the text.
2. Proof of constant and far-reaching agreements in minor
verbal details between the versions in question. Such agree-
mentS; to prove the point, must be so regular as to be over-
whdming in their force, and must include a goodly number
of passages in which comparison with other versions warrants
us in assuming that they do mot go back to the original Panca-
tantra. By litis method I think we can prove the secondary
connections of, e. g.^ the Southern Pancatantra, Nepalese Panca-
tantra, and Hitopadeia; also of TantrSfkhyayika and Pur^a-
bhadra.
3, Less reliable is the third method of proof, namely, proof
tliat tlie versions in question are parts of some larger whole,
and that said larger whole is of common origin. This is the
case, among the versions used by me, only with the Pahlavi
and the Brhatkatha versions. As pointed out above, the Old
Syriac and the Arabic versions are offshoots of the Pablavi,
which included not only a translation of a Pancatantra version
but a considerable amount of other material. Since the Old
Syriac and the Arabic agree in presenting this other material,
which is not found connected with the Pancatantra in any
other version, we should perhaps be justified on this ground
alone in assuming that the Pancatantra versions found in them
• Ways of proving secondary interrelationship 61
are closely and secondarily connected. Of eonrsej ihe same
can be proved by both of the other methods mentioned above.
The case is different with the Brhatkatha versions, Somadeva
and Ksemendra. Here this third method is the only way by
which we can prove their interrelationship. It seems clear that
the Kathasaritsagara of Somadeva and tlie Erhatkathtoahjarr
of Ksemendra both go back as a whole to a common original
(see Lacote's work cited on page 23, note 14). Therefore it
seems fair, a priori^ to assume that materials common to both
works were probably drawn, at least primarily, from tlmt
source (in spite of the fact that K^mendra evidently used
also anotlier Pahcatantra version, see page 25). But for this
fact, however, it seems to me diat there would be no sufficient
reason to assume such relations between the Pancatantra sec-
tions of Somadeva and Ksemendra. On the one hand, they
contain no secondary stories in common (indeed, Somadeva
contains no secondary stoiues at all). And on the other hand,
they do not. strikingly agree in verbal details. It may be a^umed
that this is due to the facts that both of them are drastically
abbreviated, and that both have cast their materials in poetic
guise. In spite of these facts, however, both of them have
managed to retain many verbal correspondences from the orh
ginal; and it is curious that even in these inherited traits they
seldom agree closely with each other; rather, each preserves
at different times different original features. The only striking
agreements between Somadeva and Ksemendra are their com-
mon omission of the Introduction and of Story I, 3. But common
omissions constitute merely negative agreements and prove no-
thing as to ultimate relationship ; it is easy to suppose that they
occurred independently. For these reasons, I retain a lingering
suspicion that after all Somadeva and Ksemendra may not
impossibly have got their Pancatantra versions from different
sources. That is, I tliink it is at present impossible to prove
absolutely that they got these sections from tlie same common
source from which they undoubtedly got most of the other
materials in their works; tho the presumption remains tlmt
they did. Nothing is shown by the position occupied in the
KatliasaritsEgara and the Brhatkathamafijarl by the Pancatantra
sections of eacli ; for both Somadeva and Ksemendra rearranged
3715
52
Chapter III; Metho^ls employed in the reconstruction
their materials so extensively that there is little correspondence
in the order o£ the major sections or books of their respective
works, (This is, however, not true of the internal order of tlie
Pancatantra sections of the two works, which in both cases
follow strictly the order of the original Pancatantra.)
Versions which are not secondarily interrelated. — Unless ver-
sions can be shown by one of these three methods, and pre-
ferably by the first two combined, to be related, I believe that
it is safe to consider them independent offshoots of the original
Pancatantra. By applying these tests, I think that it is possible
to establish four independent streams of Pancatantra tradition.
These are:
1, TantrakhyEyika, Simplicior, and Ptiniahhadra. To this
group belongs also Ksemendra in part, since it apparently used
Tantrakhyayika. On the other hand, Purnabhadra made partial
use of at least one different stream, not secondarily related to
any of the others; so that we have traces of at least a fifth
stream, which however nowhere appears in a pure and un-
contaminated form in the texts which we have.
2, Southern Pancatantra, Nepalese Pancatantra, and Hito-
pade^a.
3, The Brhatkatha versions, namely Somadeva and Ksemendra.
But only Somadeva is a pure representative of this stream;
Ksemendra is contaminated from Tantrakhyayika. Tiiereforo
Ksemendra is significant when agreeing with 2 and 4,. but not
with 1.
4, The Pahlavi versions.
How to determine original matter? — My readers will by this
time be asking, how can one tell whether a given feature —
especially one occurring in more than one of the older versions—
belongs to the original or not? Or how can one gauge varying
degrees of probability in this respect? I have workt out a
method for this operation, which is doubtless not infallible, but
which in my opinion yields results that are as sure as our
materials permit, and sure enuf to justify their publication. It
is not easy to make it clear in a few words; I shall develop
it as succinctly as possible in the following pages. Illustrations
of its workings in detail will be furnisht later.
All versions point to one archetype
53
All versioas point to a definite literary archetype.— In tlio first
place the question might be raised (altho, so far as I know,
it has not been responsibly raised in print), whether there ever
was any “ original Paneatantra,” in the sense of a single defi-
nite composition from which all the versions descended. It might
bo suggested that we are dealing simply with a nebulous mass
of popular fables and stories, with its edges never clearly de-
fined; a treasure-store upon which various literary redactors
drew, each taking portions, and thus forming, as it wore, various
overlapping tho not identical Paneatantra “ schools.” ^ Nothing
is more certain, to my mind, titan the impossibility of such a
view. A glance at tlie table showing the conspectus of stories
of the original, Chapter VIII, is perhaps enuf to show this. From
tliat table it appears that, disregarding tho Hitopadesa (which
is only partly based on the Paneatantra and has extensively
rearranged the stories), all the versions agree in showing nearly
all the stories which I take to bo original ; and, what is much
more important, they have them in the same order, almost
without exception. The frame stories of the five hooks are tho
same except that the Jain versions use a different story as the
^ The Vedic schools have been suggested to me orally as a j^ossiblo analogy,
by a scholar whose judgment I value highly. Hut this analogy seems to me
a very poor one. The Vedic schools grew np around the ritual*, all the
literary collections of the Veda owe their origin, form, and content to the
Vedic ritual. The words spoken at this ritual were originally a quite ancillary
matter, and naturally, therefore, a nebulous and indefinite one. The words
actually varied constantly from time to time and from place to place, and
their various forms boro only a vague and indefinite relation to each other.
Out of that nebulous mass, as the thing gradually began to get crystallised,
naturally there dovelopt quit© a number of more or less variant forms of
tho spoken ritual, which resembled each other only to an extent comparable
to that to which tho various temporal and local forms of the pragmatic
ritual resembled each other. That is, there was a profound general similarity;
after all, the ritual was essentially the same all over; but there was an in-
definite number of minor variations, each of which, generally speaking, had
as good a right to be called “ original ” as perhaps any other. — But until
some reason can be shown for such a process of development in the case
of the PaheaUntra, it seems to me wo can hardly pass from one to tho other
as if the cases were analogous. That they certainly are not, it seems to me.
What ritual, or other outside consideration, could possibly have been re-
sponsible for the comparatine fixation of the Paficatantra which must surely
be admitted to be indicated as a condition precedent to all our versions?
54
Chapter III; Methods employed in the reconstruction
frame for the fifth book. Of the thirty-two emboxt stories,
twenty-three are found in all the versions. Of the remaining
nine, one (IV. 1) is lacking only in the Nepalese verse-text
(that is, the single verse which it contained was omitted by
the extractor of the verses); two others (I. 4 and V. 1) are
lacking only in Somadeva; one (HI. 1) only in Pahlavi; two
(III, 7 and 10) only in Simplicior; one (I. 3) only in Somadeva
and Ksemendra; one (V 2) only in Somadeva and Pahlavi;
and the ninth (11. 4) in Somadeva, Pahlavi, and Simpli-
eior.® All the stories are found at the same point in the
text of all recensions (so far as found in them at all), except
that (1) Pahlavi has placed I. 11 before I. 7; (2) the Jain
versions have transferred III, 1 to Book IV and rearranged the
stories of Book V; (3) Simplicior has transferred to Book IV
some of the other stories of Book III (c/, on this, however,
page 31 f. above). It is hardly plausible to suppose that so many
redactors should have drawn on a loose stock of fables and,
by mere accident^ have come so close to selecting the same
fables. But it is next to impossible that, having once selected
the fables, they should have arranged them all in practically
the same order, — unless it were possible to show some reason
in the nature of things, or some external determining cause,
why precisely this order and no other should hav6 been selected;
and that seems not to he possible, The fact that some of the
versions have inserted secondarily quite a number of other
stories does not detract from the force of this argument.
Even more compelling, however, is the striking verbal
agreement between the versions thruout so much of their
extent. Not only do they all, as a rule, tell the same stories
in the same way. Their very language is to a considerable
extent identical; to an extent which would, I think, be
literally inconceivable except upon the assumption that they
go back to the single definite literary archetype assumed. Take
for example the passage, I §§ 34 — 48 and vss 7—23, quoted
with readings of all versions in Chapter VI below. This passage
includes fifteen consecutive prose sections and seventeen con-
® Our ins. of the Old Syriac happens to have a long lacuna where Story
I. 2 was found; since the story occurs in the Arabic, this lack need not be
counted as a real omission.
How to determine original material
56
secatire verses from the frame-story of Book I. Be it noted
that the character of this particular passage is most unfavorable
to its preservation intact. It contains no action whatever, no
dramatic ’■elements which would arrest the attention or impress
the memoiy. Yet I think one who reads the variants of the
several versions can hardly help agreeing, not only that they
all, except Somadeva and K^emendra, have preserved the
sense of nearly all of it; but also that the extent of their
verbal coincidences is such as would be quite inconceivable
unless we assume that they all copied from texts which ulti-
mately went back to one definite literary archetype. Even
Somadeva and Ksemendra show some traces of it (c/. for instance
Somadeva on I vs 9); in the dramatic portions, where a story
is being told, they are much closer to the rest. It is true that
the verbal correspondences found in this particular passage
are more perfect than is often the case for such a considerable
stretch of the text. But on the other hand^ the correspondences
in general sense^ at least, are often, and especially in the
dramatic and narrative portions, even more complete; that is,
there are fewer omissions in some of the versions. Enuf said:
we cannot but assume the actuality of our goal, the original
Paiicatantra. This being admitted, the question remains how
to reach that goal?
1. Features common to all versions must be original.— It
seems that we have the right to assume, as a starting-point,
that such features as are common to all the versions considered
in this work — which includes all the older versions— -and occur
at the same point, belong to the original. Otherwise, we
should have to assume either a chance coincidence (surely
scarcely possible in so many versions), or that all of them go
back to a secondary archetype more recent tlmn the original
Pancatantra. There is, in my opinion, no reason whatever to
make such an assumption. (See below, Chapter V, for my reasons
for not accepting an assumption of this sort made by Bertel)
At any rate, we can only treat the common original of all
existing versions as, for practical purposes, the original Pahea-
tantra. We can hardly hope to get at one that is more original.
2. Omission, of features in Hitopadesa and the Brhatkathi,
versions not significant.— Secondly, the omission in certain
56 Chapter III; Methods employed in the reconstruction
versions of features common to all the other versions does not
seriously diminish the virtual certainty that these features are
original. For instance, it is obvious on the face of it that the
Hitopade^a has rearranged its Pancatanti'a materials so com-
pletely that the omission, in it, of a particular story or other
feature cannot even tend to make us doubt the originality of
that story or feature, if it is found in all the others. In the
case of the Bpliatkathg versions, Somadeva and Ksemendra, we
must be more cautious; but something of the same sort is
true of them. They preserve, to he sure, most of the stories,
and follow the general drift of the text. But it is obvious, so
obvious that anyone who knows them cannot help regarding
it as axiomatic, that they have abbreviated the text most
drastically. Particularly in the non-narrative poi’tions, such as
the sample referred to above and quoted in Chapter VI
below (I §§ 34—48 and vss 7 — 23), they are extremely scanty.
Therefore, if we fail to find a trace of an individual sentence
or verse in Somadeva or Ksemendra, or both, it is evident
that this is no reason for serious suspicion that it is unoriginal
If it is found in Tantrakhyayika, Southern Pailcatantra, the
Jain versions, and Pahlavi, and (if a verse) in the Nepalese
Pancatantra, all in the same position, it would be a hardened
sceptic indeed who would refuse to believe in its originality,
Chance could surely not account for the independent insertion,
at the same place, of mamj identical features in so many
versions; and I have been unable to find the slightest reason
for suspecting that all these versions go back to a secondary
archetype.
S. Very minar features common to a smaller number of in-
dependlent versions are not necessarily original, — V^hen it comes
to agreemenlB between a smaller number of versions, we must
go more slowly. When such agreements conceim only small
details, it often becomes conceivable that they may bo the
resuh of chance, even tho they occur in two or three independent
versions. A slight change in the prose narrative may occur to
more than one redactor at different times. A proverbial stanza,
known to many people as a geflUgeltes Wort,’^ may be inserted
independently at the same point in the narrative, if its meaning
happens to fit the context. Such stanzas are often current in
Minor eorrespoiidences
57
several more or less variant forms ) a redactor may liave
found a stanza in a certain form in his original, but because
he happened to he familiar with. the same stanza in another
form, he may have changed it.^ A redactor of another, in-
dependent version may do the same thing; then wo have an
agreement, which however means nothing as to the original.
The general habits of individual recensions, as well as their
general interrelationships, must he carefully considered in such
matters. For instance, the Southern Pancatantra in its most
original form, the Brhatkatha versions, and the Pahlavi are all
versions which contain few interpolations or expansions. Hence
if we find a feature recorded in the Southern Pancatantra,
Somadeva, or Pahlavi, and also, in the same place, in some
unrelated version, this raises a strong presumption that the
feature is original; a stronger presumption than, for instance,
would be the case with Simplicior or Piirnabhadra, both of
which expand freely. Again, if the common feature occurs not
only in the Southern Pancatantra but also in the Nepalese
Pancatantra or the Hitopadesa, the presumption becomes still
stronger; for this indicates that it probably goes back at least
to the common archetype of those versions, the “ Ur-SP.'’
4. More important features common to several independent
versions : probability of originality tends to vary witk importance
and closeness of correspondence. — The more striking and im-
]_>ortant the feature in question is, the greater is the likelihood
that agreements between different versions indicate originality-— *
always barring the possibility of secondary interrelationship,
which must he shown by one of the methods outlined above
(page 49 ff.). Some features (for instances, see Chapter YII)
may occur in two versions only, and yet it may be more
reasonable to assume that the others have omitted them, tiian
that the two versions inserted them independently. These are
the two alternatives that arc always before us in such a
It is by no means always easy to choose between them. Thw
is no rule of thumb, no definite line that can he drawn; we
can not define tlie exact point at which a variation becomes
3 For examples (at least possible ones) of the last two processes, see
the “ unoriginal agreements ’’ cited in Chapter VI.
58
Chapter III: Methods employed in the reconstruction
so important, so peculiar, that it is harder to suppose its in-
dependent occurrence than its inheritance front the original.
And, as indicated in the preceding paragraph, no single instance
can be considered absolutely alone. It must be considered in
the light of all other similar instances that occur; and in the
h’ght of the general habits of the rersions containing it.
6. Entire stories common to several independent versions at
the same place are almost certainly original.— When it comes
to entire stories occurring at the same place in different ver-
sions, it seems to me that the case is different, and much
simpler. Independent insertion of the same story at the same
place in versions which knew nothing of each other, or of a
common secondary archetype, seems to me a priori so impro-
bable that we might almost reject its possibility— unless indeed
there were in the original text a clear reference to the story
in question. And if the stories are told in the several versions
not only at the same point, but also in lainguage that shows
clear verbal correspondences, then it seems to me that all
possibility of doubt is liquidated. In that case the versions
must have taken the story from the same source. And that
source can only have been a Pancatantra version — whether
the original, or a secondary archetype. Otherwise— if they drew
on. an outside source— what human probability is there that
they would have happened to insert the same story, told in
<he same language (in part at least), at exactly the same point
in. the text? Seldom indeed is the appropriateness of an emboxt
story to its context so compelling and exclusive that we could
see any reason why, on the theory of chances, a redactor
should have inserted that story precisely here, rather than in
any of numerous other places.* — But if the story in question
* Wtat happens when the same story is inserted independently in
different versions can easily be seen from the instances in which it has
occurred. Namely: (1) The stories are told in very diffevmt term,, with a
markt lack of the verbal correspondences that tend to characterize the
stones taken from the same archetype; and (2) They are found at widely
different places. Examples are the stories of the Treacherous Bawd (Pahlavi I.
nli 6, Southern PaBoatantra ? I. 28, Nirmala Pathaka’s
0 a MarEthl V. 9; see Hertel, ZDUG. 69. 115, and Pafic. p. 285); and the
Blue Jackal (Tantr. L 8, K?emendra I. 7, Simpllcior I. 10, Purnabhadra I. 11
Lin all these secondarily related], and HitopadeSa m. 6 Pet., HI. 7 MU.;
Correspondences of entire stories
59
was taken from a secondary archetype, my experience leads
me to be confident that it would not stand alone. There would
be many other features in the versions concerned which would
show the same common origin — whether entire stories inserted,
or other less important insertions or variations. As I have
pointed *out above (p^iges 49 ff.), and as I shall illustrate in
detail below (Chapter IV), such is regularly the ease with
secondarily related versions. Their secondary relations strike
one so forcibly that it is hardly possible to be in any doubt
about the matter.^
While such a jmori considerations may be allowed weight,
they have not been solely responsible for the conclusion
which I have reacht on this point, and of which I feel more
than usually confident. That conclusion is that stories which
occur at the same place in more than one independent version
belong to the origmal. Specifically, this naeans that stories
occurring in the same place in versions belonging to any two
of the four groups mentioned on page 52 must be origmal,
viz, (1) Tantrlkhyayika or Simplicior or PQrnabhadra; (2)
Southern Pancatantra or Nepalese Paiicatantra or Hitopadesa^
(3) Somadeva (or K^emendra, except that agreement between
Ksem. and Tantr. and the Jain versions must be ignored);
and (4) Pahlavi. There is a strong a priori presumption that
smaller agreements between two or more members of these
different groups also represent the original; but in the case of
entire stories this presumption amounts to virtual certainty. In
actual fact, every story which I attribute to the original is
found at the same place in at least three of these four streams
of tradition, with two exceptions (11. 4— really only an incident
in Book II’s frame story, c/. note 21, page 20— only in Tantr., ^
SP, Ksem., and Ptiru.; and V. 2, only in these same versions
and Simplicior and Hitopadesa [not in the same place in the
also in numerous later and secondary versions, Hertel, Paiic,,
That the latter story occurs in a different place in Hitopadesa is of obw®
not significant, since HitopadeSa otlierwise transposes the stories. What is
significant is that the story is utterly different in Hitopadela; its correspon-
dence to the others is extremely remote.
® Except as to Somadeva and K^emendra, which are so seriousJy abhrevxated
that the ordinary tests cannot be applied to them with such success; p. 61.
60
Chapter III: Methods employed in the recoustructioii
Jain versions and Hit.]). — On the otlier hand, unoriginal are
a number of stories found only in Tantr. and the Jain versions,
or Tantr. and Ksemendra; and one story found only in SP,
Nepalese, and Hitopade^a. In the case of the stories common
to Tantr., Jain versions and Ksem., there are internal reasons
for thinking them spurious in most of the cases (c/. p^ige 74 ff.
below); and their omission in all streams of tradition except
one is pretty sure evidence in itself. Especially noteworthy is
their omission in SP; for SP is remarkably faithful in pre-
serving all iviportcmt details of the original (it compresses, but
does not omit much), and in particular it has preserved, I
think, every story of the original, a distinction which it shares
only with Tantrakhyayika and Purnabhadra.
6. Summary of methods by which originality is determined.
— What is true with yirtual certainty of entire stories is true
with varying degrees of probability of smaller text units, down
to individual words. If they occur in more than one of the
four independent streams of tradition (page 52), the a priori
presumption is that they are original. The strength of this
presumption is greatest with larger sections, less with brief
phrases, and least with single words. The presumption is
strengthened by lack of any positive agreement among the
remaining, discordant versions. If we find two alternative and
irreconcilable agreements, each supported by two or more
independent versions, it is evident that we are dealing, in one
case or the other, with a chance coincidence; for both cannot
go back to the original. In such cases we can only conjecture,
with more or less plausibility, what ilie original had. But
conflicts of this sort occur, I believe, only in the case of
Individual words, or at most very brief phrases; and even
these are comparatively rare.
7. features occurring only in a single stream of tradition.—
Agreements between versions whicli are known to be even
partially interrelated can never have conclusive force. For
instance, an agreement between Tantrakhyayika, Simplicior,
Pdr^iabhadra, and Ksemendra never has more force than the
reading of a single version, because these versions are all to
some extent interdependent. On the other hand, when the
disagreements of the other streams of tradition are purely
Features in only one stream of tradition
61
negative; that is, when the others simply omit a minor feature
found in one stream, instead of containing a discordant reading;
then it is often impossible to be certain that the feature in
question is unoriginal. For it is often quite conceivable that
the feature has been omitted independently in the archetypes
of as many as three streams of tradition. We must remember
on such occasions that the “ Ur-SP ” and tlie Brhatkatha
archetypes abbreviate more or less on principle; and that we
liave only secondary and corrupt descendants of the Pahlavi
archetype. Accordingly, when we find a minor feature well
attested as belonging to (especially) the Tantrakhyayika-Sim-
plicior-Purnabhadra(-Ks0mendra) archetype, and when there
is no reason a priori to think that the feature is secondary
(that is, when it is not inconsistent with something which we
can establish on other grounds as pertaining to the original),
then it seems to me that there is enuf chance of its being
original to warrant putting it in the text — but always in paren-
theses^ by which I indicate that the words in question may be
seoondaiy insertions.. — This applies to minor ” features prima-
rily; for the more important and striking a feature is, the less
likely is it that it would have been omitted in three different
archetypes, particularly in the Southern Pancatantra, which
omits little of importance. A fortiori^ this principle can hardly
apply to entire stories at all, in my opinion. So few original
stories are omitted in any version (none whatever, I believe,
in the Southern Pancatantra or Tantrakhyayika or Purjgiabhadra),
that it would be surprising to find the same story omitted
independently in three archetypes. But furthermore: the insertion
of a story is almost sure to result in changes in the surrounding
material, introducing in the context features which are indicated
as secondary by the positive agreement of the other versions
against those intruding features.
In regard to the moralizing verses which are so abundant
in the Pancatantra, it is usually very easy either to insert them
or to omit them witliout altering the context at all— or at most
only by adding or omitting an uktam ca or the like. Con-
sequently all redactors seem to have done both, either de-
liberately or accidentally. In general 1 deal wnth the verses as
with the prose, inserting in parentheses those whose originality
62
Chapter III: Methods employed in the reconstruction
is not certain, particularly those occurring in Tantrakhyayika
and the Jain versions but nowhere else. With this exception,
I make it a rule not to include, even in parentheses, verses
of which no traces are found in any but a single stream of
tradition. There is more justification for making an exception
of agreements between Tantr. and the Jain versions in the
case of verses than in the case of prose. For the Brhatkatha
versions omit almost all the verses; lienee the onaission of
verses in them means little. And both Pahlavi and Ur-SP
reproduce the verses less perfectly than the prose.
I freely admit that it is not only theoretically |)ossible, but
even likely, that I have by this method omitted a few stanzas
which belonged to the original, but were lost in all versions
except, say, Pahlavi, or the Ur-SP. I can only say in defense
that it seems to me that I have come much closer to the
original as a whole by this method than by any other which
could have been adopted; say, by including all the verses
found only in Ur-SP. Verses found only in the Pahlavi could
not, of course, he included without guessing at the Sanskrit
originals.
As to prose features, I think there is every reason to believe
that the general sense of practically everytliing found in the
original is included in my reconstruction, if not as a part of
the certain text, then at least in parentheses as a possible but
uncertain element in the oiuginal.
Our methods are verified inductively and pragmatically, and are
not based on mere abstract considerations. — These conclusions,
I say, are not based wholly, nor even primarily, on the a priori
considerations advanst above. They have been workt out slowly
and painfully, from a study of all the materials, I have care-
fully tested all the other possibilities that I have been able
to conceive; for I am well aware of the ease with which one
may deceive himself by theoretical reasoning. I can lionestly
say that no other theory seems to me possible, in the light of
all the evidence. I hope and believe that anyone who open-
miiidedly studies my text and Critical Apparatus will agree
with me. For those who have not the time or inclination to
do this, I offer below (Chapters VI and VII) some examples
which illustrate my conclusions. It must be remembered, however,
Methods verified indticfcively
6S
that any sucli selection must in tlie nature of things be regarded
as illustrative, rather than as final proof. To prove the point
definitely the 'whole must be considered.®
® Wintarnitjs, DLZ. 81 (1910), 2760, was guidedi by very g'ood instiaet
when he said: Jedenfjills scheint mir die t!rb'ereinstinimtiiigi,zwisch!ein awei
Oder mehreren der alien Rezensionen das stlrkst© Indizium fidr den Zustand
des Gmudwerkes zn seiii.” He has in mind here entire stories 5 bnt tiie
same could be said of smaller text-units. Only instead of “ d^ alien Re-
zensionen ” he mi^ht better have said “ der gegenseitig unabliEngii^n Re-
zensionen ” — which is doubtless what he really had in mind ; this would
answer Hertars question in reply, ZDUG. 69, 118, « warnm nnr alien f Und
wo ist die Grenze zwischen alt und jung?*’ (Qf. below, p, 67, note 7.) The
qualification that such correspondences, to be compelling, must be found
at the same place in the several versions, was clearly in Winternitz^s mind,
as is indicated by his following sentences. He was, to be sure, unfortunate
in one of the instances be quoted; the story of the Treacherous Bawd is
noi found at the same place in Pahlavi and TantrSfchyllyika «, as of oours©
Heriel was not slow to point out in his reply. But Wintemita was absolutely
right in asserting,, against Eertel, the originality of the story of the Old
Man, Young Wife, and Thief "(Reconstruction IIL 6). This story occurs in
all the visions except the a recension of TantrSkhylyika and lb© Hito-
^adefe*., — and In the same place in aU except Simplicior, which tramspoees
It to the fourth book along with several other stories of the original
Book m. Hertel’s arguments (most recently in ZBMG, 69. 1171) against
the originality of this story seem to me lacking in all force. They are as
follows :
(a) The story is inserted in a most extraordinarily awkward way in the
frame-story of Tantrlkhylyika p, — True; but this merely shows the oorruptne^^
of the TantrakhySyika tradition. See my reconstructed text and Critical
Apparatus, HI || 165, 166, from which it is evident at a glance that Tp
has transposed to a position f>efore the ©mboxt story th^ two sections,
which all other versions (SP, Pp, BfhatkathS versions) have in their premier
place after the story. 1 say, in their proper place; because they wakev^
good sense here, and where T^ has them they make nonsense, or very »«r
it. It is just this transference in Tp that has produced the awkwardness
of which Hertel complains. The trouble with Hertel here, as in many othw
cases, is that he cannot bring himself to conceive th^ other versions may
be more original than Tantrakhyayika. — Furthermore, however, @ve«i if th#
“awkwardness” were original, and not secondarily produced in Tantr,
alone, I agree with Winternitz (U c,) that it would by no means disprove
the originality of the story. There are not a few cases in which features
which seem to us decidedly awkward are nevertheless surely original,
(b) Hertel asserts that the sup^josedly secondary insertion of this story
in Pahlavi is responsible for the fact that the frame-story is there disarranged,
so that the last owl-minister does not speak, — This is a typical example of
64 Chapter III t Methods employed in the reconstruction
Critique of Hertel’s method.— I find myself here again differing
from Hertel on an important matter of principle. He seems to
the way in which Hertel jumps at conclusions which happen to support
his views. A very moderate amount of comparative study of the texts
would have shown him how groundless this allegation is. In the first place,
there were in the original fwe owl-ministers, each of whom was consulted
in turn hy the king. Pahlavi mentions the consultation of only three. The
one who falls out at this place is, therefore, not the only one whom Pahlavi
drops; nor is he “ der letzte,” for the last of the owl-ministers, PrakSra-
kariia, speaks very ranch later in the original (Reconstruction III § 191;
Tantr. “ A 281 This latter passage is omitted in Pahlavi too. Does Hertel
connect Dm omission with the alleged insertion of the story of the Old
Man, Young Wife and Thief, which occurred several pages earlier?— But it
is easy to demonstrate that the earlier omission of an owl-minister, which
occurs just before this story in Pahlavi, has nothing to do with the story
in any way. Consult III § 155 of my reconstruction, with Critical Apparatus,
In this § 155 the original introduced the third owl-minister, Diptaksa. The
section is omitted in Pahlavi, except that apparently some of the words
contained in it are confused with the preceding vs 62 of the original (in
the speech of the second minister, Krurak§a). It is clear from this that the
omission of the third (not “last’’) owl-minister is due to the fact that the
Pahlavi runs together his speech with that of the second; and this occurs.
before the story in question, and at a point whose originality is certain
even by Hertel’s standards (for the prose passage III § 155 occurs also in
ishe « subrecension of Tantr;, “ A 226 a ”). It seems to me equally clear that
the true reason for Pahlavi’s failure to refer to two owl-ministers is a very
Mmple one, and the same in both cases. It is, that the original puts no
into the months of two owl-ministers (the second and the fifth,, ICrurSksa
and PrlkSrahariia). This made it easy for the Pahlavi to overlook the
brief references to the consultation with these two. The Pahlavi alludes
only to as many owl-ministers as have stories to tell. It runs together
Dlpl^ga’s speech with that of Kraraksa, and leaves out PrSkarakarna
altogether. — At any rate the alteration in Pahlavi, which drops one owl-
minister at this point, conoems only the undoubtedly original § 155 (Tantr.
“ A 225 a ■”), and does not at all concern the following story.
(c) If Hertel were right in his hypothesis of the “ secondary archetype K,”
to which he believes all Parle, versions except Tantr., and in part even
Tantr. go back, then of course the agreement of all these versions
would not prove the originality^ of the story, I shall show (in Chapter V)
that this “ archety^pe K” seems to be a fiction of Hertel’s imagination.
But it happens Ihat Hertel denies even to “ K ” this particular story, since-
he thinks it was inserted hy the immediate archetype of Pahlavi., This
apparently means that he would deny it also to his imaginary “ JST-W,”
which he supposes to be the common original of Pahlavi, the Ur-SP, and
Bimplicior. In short, it appears that Hertel, unless I misunderstand him,
Critique of Hertel’a method
65
me, as to Winternitz {DLZ, 31 [1910], 2760), to lay much too
great weight on the rule which he lays down {ZDM6. 64.631 f.
and elsewhere), that fuller versions must be assumed a priori
to be later, and briefer ones earlier. There is, perhaps, some
justification for this rule, tho it has many exceptions. But
Hertel seems to come dangerously near to operating with it
as a hard-and-fast axiom. Yet he ignores it when it suits his
purpose. For instance, the Southern Pancatantra is briefer than
the Tantrakhyayika ; but Hertel does not hesitate to declare
believes that this story was inserted, purely independently, by at least
four different redactors of Paficatantra versions, viz. those of (1) Tantr. p,
(2) tTr-SP, (S) Palilavi, (4) Somadeva,— or their respective immediate arche-
types. (He would presumably suppose that the Jain versions and K§emendra
might have got it from Tantr. p.) That this actually is his theory of the
story seems indicated hy his remark (Einleitung to TantrSkbySyika Ober-
setzung p. 141) that it is “ ein Schulbeispiel fUr Interpolation derselben Er-
zkhlung in den verschiedensten Rezensionen.”
Just what does this theory ask us to believe? That at least four redactors
should have happened to pick out the same story [from where? is not dear]
— should tell it in the same way [the narrative is closely similar]-~and
should insert it, by mere luck, at the same identical spot in Paficatantra
Book III; a spot, hy the way, in which it is by no means called for by
the context. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of other places in the
Paiicatantra where it would fit (juite as well. Is this rational? Is it not far
more reasonable to suppose that all these versions, including the Ur-Tan-
trakliyayika, inherited the story from the original, and that only the sub-
recension Tantr. a — or the one single manuscri<pt (note this I) which we have
of it at this point — omitted it, for some reason or other? Does a single Hindu
manuscript, full of lacunae and corruptions (as Hertel admits), really have
so much authority as to outweigh the agreement of all other existing versions
of the Paiicatantra, including the other manuscripts of its sister subrecension,
Tantr. p? Why may not the archetype of this manuscript have been corrupt,
or had a lacuna, at this point? Or why may not Its copyist, or om© of his
predecessors, have been offended by the awkwardness of the introduction
to the story in Tantr. p (referred to by Hertel himself), and so left the
story out deliberately, for esthetic reasons? (Personally I think it probable
that this is the true explanation; cfi p. 122 below.) Or why may not some
other reason — any of a dozen conceivable reasons — have led to its omission,
deliberate or accidental, in this one ms. of Tantr. «?
Hertel’s treatment of this story is worth considering at length, it seems
to me, as a literal redifctio ad adsurdum of his theory that omission of a
story in any one of certain recensions (Tantr. a, Tantr. p, Pahlavi, Bomadeva,
Southern Paiicatantra, Nepalese Pafic.) constitutes good reason to suspect
an interpolation,
Edgerton, Pancatantra. 11.
66
Chapter III: Methods employed in the reconstruction
tljat it is an abbreviated text, and that Tantrakbyayika’s text
is on the whole much more original. Even more abbreviated is
the text of Somadeva, as Hertel has also clearly indicated; it
is not for that reason more original. But more important is the
fact that even versions which are on the whole expanded can
be shown to have omitted some things from their originals.
Simplicior is an expanded version; yet it omits many details
which are found in all the older versions, so that they surely
would not be denied to the original by Hertel. Numerous in-
stances can easily be found from my table of correspondences,
Chapter VIII. Nay more : Simplicior omits at least one entire
story which Hertel accepts as indubitably original (Brahman,
Thief and Ogre, Reconstruction III. 7, Tantr. ed. ITL 6). This
shows that no such absolute rule can be laid down. There is
no version that does not contain both omissions and insertions,
be they deliberate or accidental. Some versions tend more or
less strongly in one direction, some in the other ; but none are
consistent— no, not even Somadeva, which contains a few un-
questionable insertions, nor Pur^iabhadra (the most expanded of
the versions handled by me), which contains some unquestionable
omissions. Nor is it fair to demand, as Hertel does, that we
prove just why a version omits something^ in every given case.
It would be just as rational to demand that we prove why it
inserts something. If we were omniscient, we could no doubt
answer both questions. Sometimes we can guess the reason — tho
seldom, I think, can we be as confident as Hertel often sounds.
Frequently there is no discernible reason. Once more, all that
we can do in individual instances (after once deciding that
wo cannot assume secondary relationship between the versions
concerned) is to ask ourselves the question, which is more
likely: (1) that an identical variation or insertion was made
independently in two or more versions at the same spot in
the text, or (2) that this identity was inheiuted from the ori-
ginal? The answer will vary with the importance and de-
finiteness of the identity, with the habits of the versions in
question, and with the extent to which other (discordant) ver-
sions may tend to support one or the other alternative. But
it is a fandamental error of principle to make the assumption
a prioiij even tentatively, that when two or more versions
Critique of HertePs method
67
have a ])assage of which the rest have no trace, the former
have inserted it secondarily.^
Hertel’s remarks ZBMQ, 69. llSf. are entirely beside the point as far
as my position is concerned; their only weight is derived from the fact that
'Winternitz (see note 6 above, page 63) said ‘‘ alien Eezensionen instead
of “ gegenseitig unabhangigen Eezensionen ”, wbicb be presumably meant.
For instance: K§einendra is dependent on TantrUkhyayika, and therefor©
agreements between these two versions prove nothing. The Jain versions
are interdependent with Tantrakhyayika, and Ptirpabhadra is directly de-
pendent on both TantrSkhySyika and Simplicior, or their immediate arche-
types. The AnwSri Suhaili is known to have used other sources of Indian
origin besides the Kalllah-wa-Dimnah. Meghavijaya and other late versions
which have the story III. 1 (Ass in Panther’s Skin) in its original place of
course got it from some version on which they depended (probably the
TantrakhyiLyika, cf. page 33). In short, when Hertel says ‘‘‘ der Wintemitzsche
Grundsatz fiihrt uns wieder zu Kosegarten zurttck ”, he is perhaps making
a good point in dialectics, but all he really does is to prove that Winternitz
was unfortunate in his phraseology. If we correct this as I have suggested,
the “ Grundsatz ” is entirely sound. Of. the preceding footnote 6.
CHAPTER IV
SECONDARY INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF VARIOUS
VERSIONS
Old Syeiao awd Ababio
Common archetype of the Old Syriac and the Arabic. — That
the various Arabic versions and their descendants go back to
the same archetype (the Pahlavi) as the Old Syriac — not, for
instance, to a separate translation from Sanskrit— is shown by
three considerations,
1. They contain one interpolated story (Treacherous Bawd,
L 3c) at the same point; and both transpose the story of the
Three Fish (original L 11), making it I. 7. In addition they
show a number of common omissions of original stories— which
might, however, conceivably have been omitted independently.
2. They are in general very close to each other in verbal
details thruout the work* This has never been, and could not
be, doubted by any one who takes the trouble to acquaint
himself with the texts. It is hardly necessary to quote examples.
Where unoriginal details are inserted in either Old Syriac or
Arabic, they are usually found in the other also.
3. The Pan catantra sections of both are found imbedded in
a larger whole, most of which is found alike in both (the
parts which precede the Pahcatantra in the Arabic are not
found in our ms. of the Syriac, which is fragmentary at the
beginning; they include some material inserted by the Arabic
translator) A
We may designate as ^^Ur-Pa” the hypothetical Sanskrit
version from which the Pahlavi translation was made.
* Benfey believed tkat tke OT%imal Sanskrit work included not only the
five books of our Paficatautra, but also the other sections peculiar to the
Pahlavi. He supposed that these had been lost in the Sanskrit Paii catantra
versions. This opinion would surely never have been exprest if Benfey had
been in possession of all the evidence which we possess.
69
The “ Ur-SP,” archetype of SP, N, and 11
SOMADEVA Am> K.^EMENDRA
Common archetype of Somadeva and Ksemendra. — On the
reasons for supposing that these two authors got their Panca-
tautra sections from their general common archetype, the North-
western Brhatkatha, see above, pages 51 f. As there stated,
it seems to me that this common archetype of the Pancatantra
sections rests on a presumption — a quite strong presumption,
to he sure — but not on any absolute proof.
Southern PAf^OATANTRA, Nepalese PAfJcATANTRA^ and
HitopadeSa
The “TJr-SP,” archetype of SP, N, and H.—Tlie fact that
these three versions go back to a common archetype is proved
by the following facts,
1. They all contain a secondary story, the Shepherdess and
her Lovers (SP L 12, N II. 12, H II, 6). In SP and N it
occurs at the same point; in H in the same book, but not at
the same point (H, as we have seen, rearranges its stories to
a very considerable extent).
2. In verbal details they correspond most strikingly and
constantly, and often in cases where the other versions suggest
that they are unoriginal. {Cf. llortel, Pane., p. 432 ff.) N has
only the verses preserved, and H has omitted many of the
stories altogether ; but in so far as the same text-units occur
in these three versions, they agree so strikingly that no one,
I think, can doubt their connexion. So far as I know no one
has doubted it Since the fact seems to be unquestioned and un-
questionable, I shall not take the space to prove it by examples
here. My Critical Apparatus contains numerous examples.
The the secondary archetype of Iff and H. — That the
Nepalese Pancatantra, containing only verses, goes hack to a
common archetype (called by me “Ur-N”) with Hitopadesa,
an archetype closely related to the Ur-SP but not quite the
same, is indicated by the following facts.
1. Boolcs I and II are transposed in these two texts, and
in them alone,
2. In many verbal details of the verses found in both texts
they agree against all other versions, even SP. See Hertel,
70 Chapter IV; Secondary interrelationships of various versions
Paflc. p. 433 f., for examples. Much more numerous examples
can easily be got from my Critical Apparatus.
TaxtuIki-iyIyiica and Ksemdndka
Xsemendra used a Tantrakhyayika manuscript. — That oii.e of
the sources of Ksemendra was a Tantrakhyayika text seems
to me (following Hertel) to be clearly enuf indicated by the
fact that Ks has five unoriginal stones, all of which occur in
the Tantrakhyayika in the same places. One of the five (T
and Ks IV. 1, Punisht Onion-Thief) occurs in no other version;
another (T and Ks III. 11) occurs nowhere else in the same
place (in Pn in Book I). These circumstances seem to indicate
that the text used by Ks for these stories was either precisely
our Tj or a manuscript very close to it. The other three stories
are found also in the Jain versions at the same points. Thej^
are: Blue Jackal (T. I. 8, Ks I. 7), Jackal Outwits Camel and
Lion (T 1. 13, Ks L 12), and Potter as Warrior (T and Ks IV. 3 ;
in T ed. put in Appendix because not found in a, c/. p. 78).
Agreements in verbal details between T and Ks are neces-
sarily few, because Ks abbreviates and omits so many details
that it leaves only a very bare skeleton of the stories. But
there are some cases in which Ks seems to have followed T
in details that are secondary. See e. g. my Critical Apparatus
on I § 547.
TaNTEIKHYAYIKA^ SiMPLIOIOB, and PteiiTABHADEA
The ‘^ITr-Simplicior,” source of our SimpHcior, and one of the
main sources of Ptrnabhadra. — ^I have already (page 31) referred
to this older form of SimpHcior, the realily of which seems
to me to be indicated with gi‘eat probability by Purnabhadra's
treatment of Book III, in which he has apparently followed
a SimpHcior text, but one which had not yet introduced the
extensive alterations, in the latter part of that book which are
found in all manuscripts of SimpHcior now known to us. I
have also referred (page 31) to the fact that Purnabhadra’s
text is for the most part a mosaic of this Ur-SimpHcior (or
at least of a text which must have been practically identical
in language with our SimpHcior) and the Tantrfikhyllyika. This
fact has been proved by Hertel, especially in the Parallel
The “ Ur-Simplicior,”— Duplications in Ptlrriabhadra 7 1
Specimens o£ text in HOS, Vol 13. These cases are quite
typical, and are confirmed by my Critical Apparatus. It is
hardly necessary to quote furtlier examples here. But it does
seem to me worth while to quote a few very curious passages
in which Purnabhadra has done this mosaic work so poorly
that he has double versions of the same passage side by side,
taking the one from Tantrakhyayika, the other from Simplicior.
This seems to hav'e escaped Hertel’s notice.
Duplications in Plirnabliadra, due to Ms use of two sources.—
I have noted four clear cases of this sort; there are probably
others.
1. Reconstruction KM §§ 11, 12. In reply to the king’s request that he
instruct his sons, the brahman Visnusarmau replies:
Spl p. 2, 1. 19 deva srhyataih me tathyavacaiiam, naliaih vidyavikrayaih
^asanasatenapi karomi. punar etliis tava putrEn masa§atkena yadi niti-
&trajfian na karomi, tatab svanSmaty^aih karomi.*— athisau raja &c,
T A 2 (after vs found only in T, the brahman says) tat kiih bahuna; srilya-
tim ayaih mama vacanasihhanEdab. nSham arthalipsur ity evaih braYimi,
na ca mamSiitiYari^asya YySYpttasarvendriyasya kascid arthopabhoga-
kSlafu kith in tvaddhitirthaih buddhipUrvako arambhab* tal likh-
yatgm adyatano diyasab. yady abaih na ^anmasabhyantarat tava putran
nitiiastrath praty ananyasaman karomi, tato mamarhasi margasathdar-
sanena bastasatam apakramayitiim. iti.— etarn asaihbbavyaih brah-
manasya pratijhaih srutva sasacivo raja &c,
Pn p. 2, 1. 4 deva, sruyataih me tathyavacanam. naliaih vidyavikrayaih
karomi sasanasateiia. etan punar masa^atkena yadi intisastrajhan na
karomi, tatab svanamaparityagaih karomi.
kiih bahmm, ^ruyataih mamai^ siillianadab* naham arthalipsur bra-
vimi, na ca me ’sitivar^asya vyavifttasarvendriyartlmsya kiihcid arthena
prayojanam. kiiii tu tvatprarthanasiddhyarthaih sarasvativinodaiii kari^-
yami. tal likbyatSm adyatano divasab. yady ahaih §aijmE&Sbhyaiitare
tava putran niti^astraih praty ananyasad;-to na karomi, tato ’rhati me
devo devamErgaih saihdar^ayitum. iti.—etlih brElimapaByasaitibhavySih
pratijfiaih ^rutva sasacivo raji &c.
It seems as clear as possible that Ptirpabhadra has simply taken over
bodily first Simplicior’s, and then TantrEkbyEyika’s, version of this
passage, so that it has two variant versions of the same matter.
The next case is perhaps even more striking, since it introduce an
internal inconsistency in PUrpabhadra’s text.
2. In the story of the Gat, Partridge, and Hare (Reconstruction III. 4),
as told in Tantrakhyayika (whose general senee is supported by most
versions and is clearly close to tbe original), the partridge and hare set
ofi to have their dispute decided (our text, HI § 95). In § 97 the partndge
72 Chapter IV: Secondary interrelationships of various versions
asks the hare (so T, SP ; Pn with Pa makes the hare ask), who shall be
the judge? In § 98 the other replies suggesting the pious cat who, he
says, lives by the river engaging in austerities etc. In § 99 the former
opposes this suggestion, because the cat is lisudra\ here T, followed by
Pn, quotes a verse (our III vs d-S) to back up this opinion. In § 100 the
cat, overhearing this conversation, engages in prayer (Jain versions,
preaches a sermon), striking a religious attitude to deceive them.— Now
Simplicior introduces its equivalent of § 100 before the question of the
judge has been raised at all. The cat hears the partridge and the hare
quarreling and decides to deceive them, by acting as described. After
this (§ 100) Spl makes the hare suggest (without any preliminary question
by the partridge, contrast our §97), in what corresponds to our §98:
Spl p. 67, hl5: sasaka aha, bhob kapihjala, e§a naditire tapasvi dliarma-
vadi tisthati, tad enaih prcchavali.
To which the partridge replies, in what corresponds to our § 99, not im
deed rejecting the proposal outright, but:
Spl p. 67,1. 16: kapinjala aba, nanu svabhavato ’yam asmakaiii satriibhu-
tab; tad dare sthitva pircchavali-
Now Pai-pabhadra, as I indicated above, follows Tantrakbyayika closely
(the exact language may be found in my Critical Apparatus ad loc.) in
§§ 95—99 and vs 48,— reversing, however, the roles of the partridge and
the hare in the conversation. (Pahlavi does the same, hut the agreement
is doubtless purely accidental; the like occurs not infrequently in all
versions; SP supports T, the Brhatkatha versions are indecisive, and Spl
rather supports T, as j\ist stated.) Pm':^abhadra’s § 100 seems to combine
T and SpL But after § 100, Pfiri^abhadra follows with Bim^flicior's version
of ^,98, &9, as quoted above, iu the position where Spl has them, and
0Ub^uiaally identical (Pp P* 1^0, 1.23). In other words,
PUruabhadra, anxious to omit nothiug found in either of his primary
BOUrci^s, forgets that he has already represented the partridge as suggesting
Ihe cat as and the have as opposing the suggestion; and here he
m.akes the Iwere offer the same suggestion, as if nothing had been said on
the subject before fbhos tittke, e^a nadiiaxe tapasvi dharmavadi ti§thati,
tad mm prt^chlvab), while the pai’tridge counsels caution (as in Spl),
■diko according to ihe preceding part of Purnabhadra (taken from Tantr.)
it was the parta-idge Mmself who first made the suggestion!
8 and 4. Oth^ eases in which Purnabhadra has clearly reproduced
Ihe same pai^afu twice, once in .ite Tantr§:khygyika form and once in
its Simplicior form, will be found in my Critical Apparatus on I §§216
and 217 (which must be couMdered togethei*) and I § 442. To save space
I refrain ftom quo&g or discussing these passages here.
The ^'ITr-rautrSkhyltyiha;’ archetype of Tantrakbyayika and
the « Br-Simplioior,”— I have indicated above (pages $6 f.), very
briefly, flie nature of my reasons for assuming a common
The “ Ur-Tantrlikhyayika
73
secondary archetype for TantrakhyUyika and the Ur-Simplicior
(and, of course, Puniabhadra). This secondary archetype I call
the ‘‘ Ur-TantrakhyUyika,” for lack of a better name. That the
two versions in question are secondarily, related can be shown
by the two first methods outlined on pag'cs 49 ff.^ especially
the first of them. That is, they both contain a number of se-
condary stories inserted at the same points; and they agree
to a considerable extent in verbal details, many of which may
reasonably be suspected of being secondary. These correspon-
dences can hardly be explained by supposing that either Tau-
trakliy^yika or Ur-Simplicior is based directly on the other.
For each contains original features which the other lacks. And
I believe there is no reason for supposing that either is a con-
taminated version. Of course, it is hard to disprove contami-
nation. The Simplicior, in particular, has (as we have seen,
page 30) many striking features that did not belong to the
original. And if anyone chooses to suppose that these secondary
features were not the work of the author of Ur-Simplicior,
but were taken by him from some older Pancatantra version,
now lost— there is no way to prove him wrong. This much,
however, is clear to me: there is not a shadow of reason for
believing that Simplicior has been contaminated \vith any otlier
Pancatantra version of which we now have knowledge, or
whose former existence wo have any conclusive reason to
assume. In other words, I believe that when Sim])lieior agrees
with any version other than Tantrakhyayika, or Purijiabhadra,
or other (later) offshoots of these versions, such agreements
are always either inheritances from the original Pailcatantra,
or chance coincidences in petty details. Nowhere do I find
signs of secondary connexions between Simplicior and, for in-
stance, the Southern Pancatantra, Somadeva, or the Palilavi,
(See Chapter V for a critique of HertePs contrary opinion,)
Secondary stories inserted in XTr-Tantrakbyayika ” and found
only in its descendants.— I believe that the Ur-Tantnikhyli,yika
contained certainly three, — probably five, and very possibly
a sixth, if not even more, — secondary stories. On page 86j
note 29^ I give a list of the six stories which may, in most
cases with virtual certainty, be attributed to this secondary
archetype. The reason for this is that they are all (except the
74 Chapter lY: Secondary interrelationships of various versions
sixth) found in the same place in T, Spl, and Pn, and in most
cases also in Ksemendra (which used Tantrakhyayika), hut in no
other Pancatantra versions. If I am right in the principle laid
down on page 61, this in itself would he enuf to make us strongly
suspect that they do not belong to the original Pancatantra. But
on the principle establisht on page 68, that stories found at the
same place in several offshoots of an archetype pretty surely
belong to that archetype, we should have to attribute the first
five of them, at least, to the Ur-Tantrakhyayika (as the arche-
type of T, Spl, and P^i, in all of which these stories occur at the
same place). To be sure, two of these five are not found in Tantra-
khyayika a. Their presence in Tantr. (3 might be explained by
assuming with Hertel that Tantr. 13 is contaminated from some
other Pancatantra version. But I shall show later (pages 121 ff.)
that this opinion seems untenable. Furthermore, I have failed to
find the slightest reason for regarding any of the differences
between Tantr. a and p as due to influence from any outside
version. I am satisfied that the features which p contains and
which a omits are mostly original features which a has lost, pre-
sumably in most cases as a result of lacunae or corruptions in
the manuscripts or their archetypes. (We have only two mss.
of T a in all, and for a large part of the work we have .only
one. Both contain many lacunae, sometimes recognized by the
copyists, sometimes not.) If we reject the theory that Tantr. g
is contaminated, as I think we must, there remains no other
plausible explanation of the discrepancies between the two sub-
recensions. I have shown above (page 63, note 6) that Tantr. a
omitted one story which belonged to the original Pancatantra.
All tliese stories are regarded by Hertel, also, as not parts
of the original Pancatantra. But since Hertel seems to me to
reject stories much too lightly, I think it desirable to show
just how much definite reason there is, from my own point of
view, for rejecting tliem. In addition to the general considera-
tion referred to above, that they occur at the same place in
only one of the four independent streams of Pancatantra tra-
dition, I find the following specific grounds in each case.
1. The Blue Jackal (T 1. 8, Spl I. 10, Pn I. 11, I. 7; also
H m. 6 Pet., m. 7 Mil.). — To begin with, the occurrence of
this story in Hitopade^a cannot he considered an indication of
Secondary stories in Ur*TantrakliySyika; Blue Jackal
75
its belonging to the original Pancatantra. Not only does it
occur in a different place (which means little, since the Hit.
transposes its stories very generally) ; hut it is told there in a
wholly different way, and with a wholly different catch-verse.
Moreover, it is not found in any manuscript of the Southern
Pancatantra, nor in the Nepalese Pancatantra. This indicates
that it almost surely did not occur in the “Ur-SP,” which was
the archetype from which the Hitopadesa got its Pancatantra
materials. Plence, the story in Hitopadesa is an interpolation.
The insertion of the Blue Jackal story where it is found in
T, Spl, Pn, and Ks disturbs the context. The situation, in the
original Pancatantra, is as follows. By telling the story of the
Louse and Flea (I. 7), Damanaka tries to prove to the lion
that ‘‘ one should not grant asylum to one whose character is
unknown ” (na t» avijfidtaHlclya kaicid dadydt pratisrayam^ I
vs 86). Upon hearing the story, the lion in § 309 quite na-
turally inquires what, then, is the nature of the bull: ‘^how
can I recognize his hostility to me, and what is his manner
of fighting? ” Damanaka’s suggestion that he does not know
the bull’s real character bears fruit at once; the lion makes
inquiries on the subject Compare the parallel situation where
Damanaka, later, makes the same suggestion to the hull re-
garding the lion (with Story I. 9, Strandhirds and Sea, tlie
moral of which is that one ought not to take irrevocable steps
without knowing what one’s enemy can do), and immediately
the bull is prompted to inquire (I § 453) what the lion’s style
of combat is.
But the versions which insert the story of the Blue Jackal
at this point (just after the story of the Louse and Flea, and
just before the lion’s question to Damanaka, our I § 309)
disturb the continuity of the tale. The moral of the Blue Jackal
story is that it is dangerous to slight old friends in favor of
strangers. This is a wholly different point, which Damanaka
liad previously mentioned (I § 271, and vs 76), If the Blue
Jackal story had been told in the original Paiicatantra, it
should rather have been told at that place. Where it stands
in Tantr. etc., it spoils the logic of the lion’s question in I
§ 809 j for that question is evidently the appropriate reply not
to the Blue Jackal story, but to that of the Louse and Flea.
76 Chapter IV: Secondary interrelationships of various versions
2. Jackal outwits Camel and Lion (T I, 13^ Spl I. 16, Pn I.
21, K? I 12). — This is a part of a longer insertion, an ex-
pansion of the brief conversation between Karataka and Daina-
naka in the original I §§ 456—458 and vs 128, After vs 128,
Tantr, and the related versions insert several sentences and
verses spoken by the two jackals to each other; and finally
this story told by Damanaka to Karataka to illustrate the
wisdom of looking out for number one.” None of the other
versions contain any trace either of the story or of the sur-
rounding material. The story itself is furthermore an obvious
piece of secondary patchwork. It is made up of elements stolen
from two other stories, which belonged to the original Pahca-
tantra^ namely, the story of the Lion’s Retainers and Camel
(reconstruction I. 8), and, that of the Ass without Heart and
Ears (IV. 1). This will be evident, I think, to anyone who
examines the storyj the imitation of the former story is noted
by Hertel, Tantr., Einleitung, p. 134, top line. These con-
siderations seem to make it practically certain that the story
is secondary.
3. Weaver Somilaka (T n, 4, Spl II. 5, Pn 11. 6). — As in the
preceding case, this story iS found in the midst of some un-
original material, which disturbs the context; one particulary
foolish feature in it is noted by Hertel, Tantr., Einleitung,
p. 136, second paragraph. The consensus of other versions shows
that the order of the Tantrakhyayika is otherwise badly con-
fused in the vicinity of this passage ; see my Critical Apparatus
and the conspectus of text-units, Chapter VIII. That is, Tantr.
not only has inserted much secondary material here, but has
confused the arrangement of the materials inherited from the
original. As to this story, it appears to have been built up
around the theme of a verse which apparently was found in
the original, vm, the vs yad abhavi na tad IMvi &c., recon-
struction II vs 68. This vs is found in SP and N, at the same
place, as well as in T in the middle of the Somilaka story. In
SP it stands between two bits of prose that are found in Sim-
plicior and PHro^abhadra just after 1he, Somilaka story, as it
were driving home the moral of the story, which is identical
with the moral of the verse and of these hits of prose (viz.
that fate, or karma, decides everything). As so often, the
Secondary stories in Ur-TantrHlcliyEyika: Weaver Somilaka 77
Southern Pancatantra is here the most faithful representative
of the original. What evidently happened was that this familiar
moral, stated in the original in a few prose words and one
stanza, was developt by the Ur-Tantrakhyayika in tlie long
Somilaka story (which incidentally is a wretched piece of
work, stupidly composed and awkwardly presented). The ori-
ginal verse was then included in the now story. The original
prose disappears from our Tantrakhyayika text altogether, but
is preserved in the Jain versions, being placed just after the
story. It is reasonable to assume that the Jain versions have
followed the Ur-Tantrakhyllyika in this, and that our Tantra-
khy^yika has lost this prose owing to the utter confusion into
which its text has fallen in the vicinity of this passage,®
4. Talking Cave (ip III. 11, Appendix to ed.; Spl in. 4, Pn
III. 15). — This story (not found in Ta ; must have been in the
version of T used by Ks, which refers to the catqh-vs, see my
Critical Apparatus) occurs in a passage (our III § 249) which
as a whole is found only in T, Spl, Pn, and K§, and is there-
fore very possibly secondary in its entirety. In it the wise
owl-minister Raktak§a, foreseeing that the crow is going to
destroy the owls, and having warned them in vain, summons
his family and departs with them, thereby escaping destruction.
Nothing is said in the sequel by which we could tell whether
this much belongs to the original or not. On the principle (cj\
p. 61) that a short passage such as this may conceivably have
been omitted from the other three streams of tradition, and
that it fits the context well enuf, I do not feel like absolutely
rejecting our III § 249, tho of course I enclose it in paren-
® The fatalistic or karma-rnorhl of tho story is regarded by Hertel as
sufficient proof of its unoriginality, since he believes the original contained
only stories teaching lessons of trickiness (nUi)\ cf. p, 6 above. While this
argument may have some force, by way of confirmation of results otherwise
proved, I do not believe that it has very much. I should never admit that
such a moral in itself alone would justify us in doubting the originality of
a story. There is no question that the original contained at least Hanms
teaching this moral (cf. for instance II vss 70 and 71, just after this passage
in ray reconstruction; these two vss are found in T and Pahlavi, and I
presume, therefore, that Hertel would not deny that they are original). And
if stanzas, why not stories? Hertel expects a deal too much single-
mindedness, and too much care, from a Hindu composer.
78 Chapter IV: Secondary interrelationships of various versions
theses as doubtful; the chances are, in fact, that it is unoriginal.
These chances are much greater with the story. Nevertheless
I think the story probably belongs to the Ur-Tantrakhyayika,
tho surely not 'to the Ur-Pancatantra. Its omission in Ta is
probably due to the fact that the T archetype (preserved in Tj3)
was corrupt at the point where the story was introduced.^ —
Incidentally the story is very poorly told in T; the Jain ver^
sions handle it much better, and certainly come closer to the
way it was originally told. The inferior style of the story in
T may have been one reason why the redactor of Ta omitted
it^ if he omitted it deliberately.
5. Potter as Warrior (Tp, Spl, Pn, and IV. 3; not in Ta). —
The omission of this story in Ta proves nothing at all, since
Ta demonstrably has lost part of the original matter both before
and after the point at which the story is inserted (namely, Tp
IV vs 18, reconstruction IV vs 20, before the story, and T|3
A 301, with vs 23, our IV §84 and vs 21, after the story).
Ta ends the fourth book very abruptly with its vs 17 (our
vs 19), and there is no doubt in my mind that the original
was longer. Nevertheless it seems to me unlikely that the ori-
ginal Pane, contained the story here under consideration — for
the general reasons mentioned page 61. In this case, as in the
preceding (Talking Cave), I am unable to reinforce them by
any internal evidence pointing to the insertion of the story. It
is appropriate enuf (if we assume the originality of T§ A 297
and what follows ; this passage and the story go hand in hand,
and if one is unoriginal, the other evidently is). And it is, at
least in the Jain versions, very well told; in the Tantrakhyayika,
not quite so well. — The general probabilities are, therefore, that
the story belonged to the Ur-Tantrakhyayika, but not to the
original Pancatantra.
3 Tp reads, after ’oatsydmaht. (p vart^) in the text of § 249 (Tantr. p. 136, 1. 3,
and. Appendix, p,165, 1.1); ca gukam asannavma^opaspr^tdm andgatdm (v.l.
^tam) tyagyatMi (v. L saMgajga) ireya (v. 1. 4reyali sydt). uHai^i ca:~-At which
point follows the catch- verse of the Talking Gave story, and the story itself.
No words resembling this sentence occur in Spl or Ta makes reasonable
sense out of them (a lecido faciUor)^ as follows: imdih . . . tyajdma
iti\ and then omits the story. Hertel regards Ta as the original, and thinks
Tp has inserted the story. The opposite theory seems at least as likely. On
the general question of passages found in Tp and omitted in Ta see page 121.
Other secondary stories in the Ur-TantrakhySyika
79
6. Tke Clever Hansa (T HI. 11, Ks HI. 11, P?i L 19).~-Here
we have a story whose antiquity is even more qnestionahle.
It occurs in the same place only in Ksemendra and TantrU-
khyayika ^ (but it may well have occurred also in Ta; we
cannot be sure, since Ta has a long lacuna at the point
where the story is found). Even the Jain versions do not have
it at the same place; Purriahhadra has it in the first hook,
and Simplicior does not have it at all. Hence it is doubtful
whetlier it was found even in the XJr-Tantrakhyiyika; while
there is no reason whatever to suppose that it belonged to
the original Paucatantra.
7. Other stories which may possibly have been found in the
Trr-Tantrakhya3rika. — Our Tantrakhyayika contains two other
stories (not to mention the story of the Treacherous Bawd,
interpolated in Ta as HI. 5; see page 40, note 30) which are
not found even in the Jain versions (Spl and Pij). One of
them, King ^ivi (T od. IIL 7), is found in no other version
used by me (it is not even found in Ta, but since the ms,
of Ta has a lacuna at the place where it occurs, we cannot
tell whether it occurred in it originally or not). The other,
T IV. 1, the Punisht Onion-Thief, occurs in the same place
in Ksemendra, but nowhere else (the sole ms. of Ta has a
lacuna where it occurs, also). The failure of these two stories to
occur in the Jain versions may conceivably be due to omission
by them (Simplicior, at least, omits some original stories).
Likewise, it is conceivable that some of the numerous stories
found in the Jain versions, but not in Tantrakhjayika nor
any other Paucatantra version, may have occurred in the Ur-
Tantrakhyayika. But here we cannot do more than conjecture;
and speculation on this subject is not likely to be fruitful.
There is, in any case, not the slightest reason for supposing
that any of these stories belonged to the original Pancatantra.
Verbal correspondences between Tantrakhyayika and Simplicior
and Pur]^abhadra.— The secondary relationships between Tautrl.-
khyayika and the Jain versions are, I think, sufficiently esta-
hlisht by these unoriginal stories inserted in them. We should
expect, however, to find them confirmed by minor* agreement
in sense and language more striking and extensive than is
the case with versions whose only connexion is thru the ori-
80 Chapter IV; Secondary interrelationships of various versions
ginal Pancatantra. In fact we do find that SimpHcior (not to
speak of Purnabhadra, which as we have seen used Tantra-
khyayika directly) agrees at many places with Tantrakhyayika
much more closely than either of them with other versions.
To be sure, it is often hard to tell whether these agreements
are secondary, or whether they go hack to the original Panca-
tantra. Since both the Southern Pancataiitra and^its relatives,
and the Bphaikatha versions, tend to abbreviate the text in
details, we have in Tantrakhyayika and the Jain versions the
only Sanskrit versions that are not essentially abbreviated.
Therefore, when they are fuller than the other Sanskrit versions,
we must always consider the possibility that they preseiwe the
original; and frequently the Pahlavi offshoots prove that this is
the case. Failing such confirmation from the Pahlavi, it is often
impossible to tell whether we are confronting an abbreviation
of the original by SP etc. and the Brhatkatha versions (and an
accidental omission in the Pahlavi), or an expansion by the Ur-
Tan trakhyS-yika. The greater part of the phrases and sentences
which I print enclosed in parentheses in my reconstructed text,
indicating that their originality is uncertain, are of just this sort:
they are found in Tantrakhyayika and its relatives (Spl or Pn or
both), but nowhere else (unless in Ksemendra). They maybe ori-
ginal, but there is no definite proof of it. It is probable that many
of these passages are really unoriginal. For there is no doubt
that the Ur-Tantraihyiryika contained some expansions in minor
details, in addition to the above-mentioned insertions of stoines.
Clearly secondary correspondences in detail between Tantra-
khyayika and SimpHcior (and Pdrpabhadra), — A few examples
will now he given of minor agreements between TantrUkhyEyika
and the Jain versions (especially Simplicior), all of which must,
I think, be regarded as secondary, and most of which must have
originated in the Ur-Tantrakhyayika, the common secondary
archetype of these versions. Otherwise they would have to be
purely accidental, which at least in some of the cases seems
to me impossible.
1. Eeeonstrnetion 1 §§ 18—22, Inclndingr yss 4, 5..— Here we have a
passage in wbieh the order of the original, as proved by the general
agreement of SP, H, So, and Pa, supported by the requirements of the
sense, is departed from in T and the Jain versiom. The latter also, and
►Secondary correspondences between Tantrnkhyayika and Jnin versions 81
especially T and Pn, have a greatly expanded version. The expansion
probably goes back to the Ur-Tantrakhyayika, but, in part at least,
certainly not to the original Paficataiitra.
The passage includes T A7 and 8 and vs d; SP lines 56 5*. with vs 5:
N vs 3; Hp p. 48, 11. 19 ff. with vs 16, Hm p. 5, 11. 5 if. with vs 19; So 18,
20-23; K? 261-263 (Maiik. 6-8); Spl p. 7, 11. 12ff.; Pii p. 4, 11. 18 ff.
with vss 5, G; Sy A 2; also in Arabic versions.
The situation is near the beginning of Book I, We have just heard
how the bull Samjivaka, abandoned by the caravan, had recovered from
his accident and was enjoying himself on the banks of tlie Jnnina, eating
his till and bellowing mightily. Now the text proceeds to introduce the
lion Piilgalaka, as follows. I quote first the readings of the other texts,
tlien those of T, Spl, Pn, and K§.
§18:
SP tasmin vane mrgadhipatib pingalako naina svaviryarjitarajyasukham
anubliavann aste. tathS ca (a hi).
PI tasrnin vane piugalakanama sinhah svabhujoparjitarajyasukham anu-
bhavann aste. tatha coktam.
Bo tatkalaih c^bhavat tatra nEtidilre vanEntare, sihhab pifigalako nama
vikramSkrgntakan anah.
Sy In einiger Entfeimiing von ihm war ein L5we, der jene Ebene im Be-
sitz hatte, und bei ihm befanden sich in Menge Sehakale, Fiiclise und
wilde Tier© aller Gattungen.~Ar as Sy.
vs 4:
(In Sanskrit only in T, Pp; see below.)
Sy Dieser Ldwe war nnklug [so Schulthess by emend.; the ms. reading
means ‘^klug”] nnd nnpraktiseh \ef, anitisastrajfle in T, Pn] nnd durcli
sein Regiment iibermtitig gemacht [cf. sattvocchrite].— Ar, JCap 39. 19
Erat antem leo inagnanimis [Hebrew probably “proud,” says Beren-
bourg] in suis negociis, singularis in siio eonsilio. KF 8. 14 Now this
lion was exceedingly haughty in spirit, and whatever he wisht to do,
he did independently, without employing the advice of anyone. Not-
withstanding, his knowledge was not very perfect,
vs 5:
SP, N, H: nabhi^eko na saihskErab siffhasya kriyat© mi-gSib
vikramaijitavittasya svayam ova m^rgendrati.
Variants: a, N satkarab- c, SP "jitasattvasya.— For Pp’s reading see below.
Cy. So vikramakrantakananab, under § 18; this perhaps represents pada c
of this vs. Possibly Sy and Ar also confuse this vs with the precjed-
ing.
§19:
SP sa caikadE (« sa kadEcit. so read!) pjpisEkulita udakErth! yamunltim^
a gat (a yamunEkaccham avEtarat, so read!).
H sa eEikadE pipasEkulitah paniyatli patuih yamunEkaccham avEtatat
So (20 a b) sa sidho jitu toySrtham Egacclmn yamunatatam.
Not in Pa.
Paficatwitra, II. 6
Chapter IV: Secondary interrelationships of various versions
§20:
SP teiia cinanublmtapurvain akalapralayaglianagarjitam iva saiiijivaka-
narditam asravi.
H teiia ea tatra siiihenananubliutam (Hm “ta-purvakani) akiilapralayaghana-
garjitam (Hm om pralaya, Hp om ghana, but v. 1. has it) iva saiiijivaka-
narditam asravi.
So tasyaran nadam asrausit saitijivakakakudmatah, srutva casrutaptirvaiii
taili tannadam diksu mdrcliitam.
Sy Als nun der Lowe imd sein Gefolge die Stimme des Stieres Snzbng
hdrten [fiirchteten sie sick, cf. next], wcil sie nocli nie einen Stier ge-
sehen, noch seine Stimme gehd-rt hatten.'
Ar as Sy, except that the versions refer only to the lion, not to his
attendants.
§21:
SP Srutva ca kimcic chankitamanah (a cakita°) svagatam iilocya (a °cayanj
tii§nini athitavan: kirn idam, ko ’treti.
H tac chrutva pamyam apitva sacakitah parivrtya svasthanani itgatyakiin
(Hp svagatam for kirn) idam ityalocyayam (Hm alocayans) tusniih sthitah.
So {ef. preceding, Srutva &c.) sa sidho ’cintayat kasya bata nado ’yam
idrsab, nunam atra mahat sattvaiii kiilicit tisthaty avaimi (Brockhaus
apaimi) tat, tad dhi drs^vaiva maih hanyad vanad vapi pravasayet.
iti so ’pitapaniya eva gatva vanaih drutam, bhitah siuho nigribyasid
Skaram anuyayisu. [This is interesting as one of the rare cases in
which So has expanded the text.]
Sy [cf. preceding, fiirchteten sie sich]~~aher in der Erwagung: Mein Gc-
folge darf nicht merken, daU ich in Furcht geraten bin, stellte sicli
der Lowe furchtlos imd blieb rnhig auf seinem Platze stehen.
Here follows, in all these versions, § 23, introducing the two jackals,
Kara^aka and Damanaka.
The version of T and Pn is markedly different from the above; and
Spl and K§, while much briefer, apparently indicate that their archetypes
agreed with T and Pp. The differences concern in part additions to the
text (as I believe), but especially markt alterations in order, which result
in a much poorer arrangement of the materials than that indicated by
the other, independent versions.
Let us first consider T. 1 italicize the words which literally reflect the
common original. T reads:
(§18, beginning) atha [hadaeitf cf. SPof, §19] w^esarvamrgaparivytab
[(?/. last clause of Sy] pingalaJco ndma svhha—
(§ 19) tfrda/cagrahanSrthaiii yamunakacehaw avatitb'sub —
(§20) sarhjiMhxBj^ mahantaih garjitam [so mss., ed. em. garjitasabdam] as^uot.
(§ 21) ca im^t'dtlYak^ubhitah^daya akdram [cf. So] achadya mancjala-
V afapradese catiu'mandalSivasthanenavas^/iitoii.
Here follows, in our § 22, a section found only in T and its relatives Spl
and Pi?, an explanation of the curious teims inti’oduced hy them in § 21
Secondary correspondences between TantrSEkhylyika and Jain versions 83
(which explanation, by the way, leaves ns more in the dark than ever;
ohscurum per ohscuriusl). This § 22 mmj be original; that is, its originality
cannot be disproved.
After § 22 T proceeds: atha pingalakah — and here follows a series of
epithets describing his rule, in the extreme of the ornate kavya style,
covering nine lines of fine type in the edition, and ending with this:
(§ 18, end!) i^ancintare [c/*. So] nibsadhvasam nccaib siro valmn mjatvam
anuhJiavann aste. api ca.
(vs 4:) ekakini vanavasiny arajalak^inany aiutisastrajilo
sattvoechrite in|-gapatau i*ajeti girah parinamanti.
After this T proceeds with § 23, agreeing with the others.’
Ptirnabhadra^ in this entire passage, agrees almost precisely with
with only very minor verbal variants of no interest, and in exactly the
same order. But at the end, after vs 4, Pn adds our vs 5 (Pn’s vs 6),
which, as proved by the other versions, belonged in the original immedi-
ately after our vs 4, to be sure,— but both verses belonged at an earlier
point. In vs 5 CPn 6) Pn agrees literatim with the text as printed above
from SP, N, H.
Simplicior also points to the same archetype with T, but is fragmentary.
It begins like T:
(§ 18,. beginning) atha [kadacit., to § 19] pmgalako nama sinhah sar-
vamrgaparivrtah—
(§ 19) pipasSknla udakagrahanarthaiii yamnnatat-am avatlrnah*
(§ 20) saitijivakasya gambhiratararii sabdaiii dilrad ovasynot.
(§ 21) tad! ca srutvativavyakulahrdayah sasadhvasam akuraih prachadya
vatavrk^atale caturman(lalavastlmiienavasthitab.
Of § 22, however, Spl has only the first sentence (practically as in
naming the four mandalas, but not undertaking the explanation of the
names found in T and Pn. Spl also lacks the long description of the
lion’s rule and likewise the following, transposed part of T, Pn, which
reproduces the last part of the original §18 and the two verses! Spl, in
sliort, after the first sentence of § 22, proceeds immediately with § 2B,
agreeing thenceforth with all the other versions. Evidently Spl has
shortened its immediate archetype, the Ur-Tanti‘SkhyIyika, here; for the
last part of § 18, and at least vs 4, must have been found in Ur-T, be-
longing as they do to the original Failcatantra and being found in our
T (tho transposed in order). It is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that
Spl also has omitted the expanded portion of T, Pp, which occurs pre-
cisely at the same spot In other words, it seems at least very likely that
the whole expansion of T and Pii goes back to the Ur-Tan trikhyiyika.
K^omendra has an abbreviated version, which however probably points
to an arrangement of the materials like that of T, Pp (see especially the
readings of K? quoted in my Critical Apparatus under |§ 18, 19). But
Ks contains no trace of the expansion noted in T, Pn.
What conclusions are to he drawn from this passage? First, T and Pn
liave probably eximnded the text, and this expansion prohMy goes back
0*
84 Chapter IV : Secondary interrelationships of various versions
to Ui’-T, as indicated by Spl. Secondly— and whether the other conclusion
is true or not— T and Pn have certainly deranged the order of the ma-
terials; and this derangement seems to be implied also in the fragmentary
versions of Spl and
Namely: the last part of the original § 18, and the two verses (one
verse onl}^ in T, which omits vs 5) immediately following it, are trans-
posed to a position after § 22 (and after the expansion thereof found in
T, Pn only). That the two parts of § 18 belong together, and that the
two verses belong immediately thereafter, is shown by the agreement of
the other versions, all of which have them in this place if at all (SP, N,
and H omit vs 4, and J^a either omits vs 5 or fuses it with vs 4). That
the passage of T, Pn which I identify with the end of § 18 really re-
presents that part of the original is shown by the close verbal corre-
spondence (note particularly the verbal expression anubhavann aste at
the end, in T as well as SP, H [Pn anubabhuva]). The originality of the
order of SP &c, is also pi’oved by the greatly superior sense. The de-
scription of the lion’s rule should evidently precede, not interrupt, the
description of his action on hearing Saiiijivaka’s roar.
In passing we may note a particularly clear verbal correspondence
inherited from the original in SP, H, So, and Pa, and not found at all
in T, Jn: in §20 the bull’s roar is described as ananubhutapurvam (by
the lion) in SP, ananubhUtam or °ta-pfirvakam in H, asrutapurvam in
Somadeva; and in Sy we read ‘'weil sie noch nie einen Stier gesehen,
nocli seine Stimme gehdrt batten.” Neither T nor Spl nor Pn has any
such expression. Presumably the word was omitted in Ur-T.
Note also the very close literal correspondence thruout between T
and Spl— pointing to the secondary archetype Ur^T.
2. Reeon^tructioii I §§ 29, 30.— Here the Ur-T apparently had a
duplication, which I'emains ih our T, while Spl (followed by Pn) made
an attempt to gloss it over. Again tlie sense, as well as the agreement
of the other versions, proves T-Spl-Pn secondary.
The passage occurs in Story I. 1, Ape and Wedge. Exact references
to the several versions may be got from my Critical Apparatus. I quote
hrst T (p. 7, 1. 15):
(cf, § BO) akasmac canu^aSgikaiii devagrhe vanarayUtliam agatam.
(§ 29) atha tatrSikasya 4ilpino ’rdhasphofitakasthastambho (P °patifab
kir^) Vjunamayab khadirakilakena madhye yantranikhatenava^tabdho
Vati^tjhate.
(§ 30) tatra kadScid vSnaraytitho gin^ikharad avatirya svecchaya taru-
^ikharaprasada^Egadarunicayesu prakriditum Srabdhab.
These three bits of text, which are found consecutively in T, may be
translated thus: “And a herd of apes, tagging along for no particular
reason, came to the temple. Now there was a beam of arjuna-wood, which
one of the workmen had partly split, and which had been left held apaii:
by a wedge of khadira-wood driven into it by a mechanical device. Now
it happejied once that a herd of apes came down there from a mountain-
Secondary correspondences between TantrakliySyika and Jain versions 85
top and began to play about at random in the tree-tops, the turrets of
the building, and the piles of wood/’
Is it not sufficiently clear that the first and third sentencos duplicate
each other— or, to put it in another way, that the third sentence begins
in a way which implies that the apes had not been mentioned before?
If the apes had already “come to the temple,” why later speak of them
as “coming down from the mountain-top,” and why “once upon a time”
(kadacit), when the time had already been definitely specified as the parti-
cular hour when the carpenters went away to dinner on this particular day?
This inconsistency was iiotist by Spl (which Pn follows closely tliruout
this passage). It reproduces the first two sentences almost verbally as in T:
atha kadacit tatranu^aSgikarii vanarayutham itas cetas ca paribhramad
agatam.— tatraikasya kasyacic chilpino ’rdhaspbafito ’iljanavrk^adaru-
mayab stambliafi kbadirakilakena madhyanihitena ti^fhati.
But the third sentence is changed by Spl thus, by omitting the bother-
some words kadaeid and girisikharad avatirya;
atrantare vanaras tarusikharaprasadasrngadaruparyante^u yathecchaya
kriditum arabdhab.~“At this juncture (no longer ‘once upon a time’!)
the apes started to play at random among the tree-tops” &c.
The other versions, however—SP, H, So, and (Pa is very confused
in the order here, but at any rate does not in the least support T, Spl)
—agree in the order of our reconstruction: (1) Temple is being huilt;^
(2) Carpenters leave the place; (3) One of them leaves the half-split piece
of wood held apart by a wedge; (4) Herd of apes arrives; (5) One of the
apes takes hold of wedge, &c. In all the other Sanskrit versions the apes
are first mentioned in our § 30, after our § 29 which speaks of the W’odge
left by the carpenter, T agrees with them in having § 30 in the right place,
but stupidly inserts an anticipation of it before § 29, thus interrupting
the thread of the story and making its version internally inconsistent, or
at least very harsh. Spl removes the internal inconsistency, but leaves
the interruption of the thread of the story; its version is still abrupt,
passing from the carpentry-work to the apes and back again, instead of
waiting for the logical place to introduce the apes.
Note again the close verbal relations between T and Bpl, pointing to
the secondaiy archetype Ur-T.
3. Reconstruction III vs 99.— Here again T and Spl agree on a reading
which is shown by the agreement of SP, N, Fa, and Pn to be secondary.
Pp apparently drew his reading for the verse from his third source, not
from either T or Spl (c/*. page 37). The Ur-T, source of T and Spl, may
be presumed to have had the secondary reading on which these two
versions agree.
The verse, as I reconstruct the original, reads:
fpase^am agnisefarh vya^hi^aih tath^va ca
ari^e^aih cA nib^e^afii kytvS prljfio na sidati.
“A remnant of debt, of fire, of disease likewise, and of a foe should be
blotted out without remnant by a wise man if he would avoid disaster.’'
86 Chapter IVr Secondary interrelationships of various versions
The first half verse is identical in all the Sanskrit versions where it
occurs (T, SP, Nj Spl, Pn) except that SP and Spl read c%nise^am in a,
and T, Spl, and Pii read satrusesaih- (synonym of ari°) for vyadhP in b.
In cd SP, N, and Pn read alike except that Pn has vyadhisesam for ari°,
thus restoring the sense of the original in its entirety, merely exchanging
satni°(= ari°) with vyadhP; and N reads rajan for prajfio. But T and Spl have
a quite different second half, which results in a total elimination of vyadhP:
punab-pnnalj pravarteta tasmac che^am na karayet.
(Spl pravardhante, and dharayet) The Pahlavi undoubtedly agreed with
SP, N, Piiin mentioning all four things— debt, fire, disease, and enemy;
and the original Pahcatantra is thereby proved to have read thus. The
Arabic preserves the complete sense of the Pahlavi ; its versions mention
all four things (except that some of them, as JCap and KF, say corruptly
other things” instead of “debt”). The Old Syriac has only three things,
viz. debt, enemy, and a corrupt word wliich Bickell emended to a word
meaning “ disease Schulthess, being misled by Hertel into supposing
that the original must have agreed with T in having no mention of
“disease,” emended to a word meaning “fire,” which is paleographically
more remote from the ms. reading than Bickell’s suggestion. I think there is
little doubt that Bickell was right. But be that as it may, the Arabic proves
beyond peradventure that the Pahlavi had both “disease” and “fire.”
Unless T and Spl got their secondary readings independently from
a version of the stanza known to the redactors of both as a “ gefliigeltes
Wort”— a possibility which cannot be entirely ignored— we should have
in this stanza another proof of a secondary reading in the Ur-T, inherited
in both T and Spl.
4. Eeeonstruetion III § 54.— In the story of the Elephant, Hares, and
Moon, after the herd of elephants has wrought havoc among the hares,
the hares that are left alive assemble for consultation (T, hatase^afi sasah
saiiipradliSrayitum Srabdhah). Then, according to all Sanskrit versions
except T, Spl, and Pij (namely, SP, H, So; is so abbreviated that it
hardly gives evidence either way, but at least it is not inconsistent with
SP &c.) the hare-king, named Silimukha, lays before the assembly the
problem confronting them and asks for suggestions. This is good niti
practice; compare the like situation in Eeeonstruetion III § 7 ff., where
the crow-king acts similarly after the crows have been worsted^ by the
owls. The Pahlavi versions differ only in that the statement of the dis-
aster that has befallen the hare-community is put into the mouths of the
generaJ^ assembly of hares, who appeal to their king for help; whereupon
(accoiding to the Arabic) the hare-king orders the wisest hares to consult
him on the subject.
But in T, Spl, and Pj;i the hare-king is not mentioned at this point
at all. The hares assemble and express, apparently to each other, the
thots attributed to the king in the other versions. In the next section,
HI § 55, Spl has a wholly individual variation, but the other versions
all agree essentially in making the clever hare Vijaya offer his services.
8ect)iidary correspondences between Tanlrakhyayika and Jain versions 87
Only after this, in § 56, do wo find T (followed by Pn) introducing the
hare-king (silimukho nama sasarajo &c,; note the language, which clearly
implies that he is mentioned for the first time), who now (as in the other
versions) accepts Yijaya’s offer. It seems clear, both because of the
agreement of the other versions and on grounds of general probability,
that the Ur-T and its descendants, T, Spl, Pn, are secondary in not
mentioning the hare-king at the opening of the assembly. In spite of the
presence of the king (as shown by § 56), the descendants of Ur-T represent
the assembly as being opened, and the call for the general suggestions
made, by the ignobile vulgus, which is surely not good mti.
The verbal correspondences between the versions in this passage are
not very close, tho the sense is the same but for the point mentioned- The
readings of all the versions will be found in my Critical Apparatus ad loc,
5. Reconstruction III §§ 71 j 72.— In the same story, Elephant, Haves,
and Moon, after the clever hare has frightened the elephant-king with his
bluff about the moon’s anger, the elephant humbly expresses bis regret
and promises to do better in the future. But the hare, wishing to impress
him (or to exercize his own cleverness) still further, tells him he should
go and visit the moon and apologize in person. The elephant consenting,
the hare takes him by night to the clear lake, in which the moon’s image
is reflected in the water, and when the elephant makes obeisance with
his trunk, attributes the ripples caused thereby on the reflected face of
the moon in the water to the moon’s displeasure at being disturbed.
So, essentially, all vei-sions— except that in T, Spl, and Pn the suggestion
of the visit to the moon is made by the elephant, not by the hare. In T
the elephant says, §71: tat pradarsaya [most mss. pradesaya] panthanam,
kva taih pasyeyam iti. In Spl he says: atha kva vartate bhagavau SYmn
candrab; and two lines below again: yady evaih tad darsaya mo tarn svami-
naih yena pranamyanyatra gaccbainab. Pn has a sort of combination of
T and Spl, not very close to either.
The agreement of all the other versions is enuf to establish the original
Pahcatantra. Their reading is, moreover, a more natural one. The hare
has planned in advance the trip to the lake, where he intends to show
the moon’s image to the elephant. It is therefore more plausible that he,
not the elephant, should suggest the visit to the moon.
The readings of the several versions are again not very close to each
other, tho the sense is much the same in all, except for this one point.
6. Reconstruction II § 28B.— Upon seeing the tortoise carded off by
the hunter, according to SP:
tato mrgamtl^akavayasab (« adds paramodvegavantab) kiihkartavyatS-
mtldha riidantas tarn anuyayub-hiranyakab (« ®ka iha): kihi rudyate.
Similarly H, except that it has no phrase like kiih rudyate. Fai^ clo^ly
similar to H; Sy reads: .
Als ihre Genossen das sahen, warden sic bekiimniert, nnd die Mauls ipntdh*
Ar: The gazelle, the crow, and the mouse assembled... Atfhis
became oppressive, and the mouse said.
88 Chapter IV; Secondary interrelationships of various versions
The Br versions are so abbreviated that they can hardly be used as
evidence, but at least Ks speaks of all the companions of the tortoise
(to ca jagmiir &c.).
The Ur>T, however, apparently mentioned only the mouse. T reads:
tada myamanam dr^tva liiranyab par am visiidam again at, aha ca.
Similarly both Spl and Pn. Apparently the secondary change in Ur-T,
by which only the mouse is mentioned, witliout- the deer and the crow,
was due to the fact that the following speech was put into the mouth of
the mouse alone. All versions which have the speech at all (the Br versions
omit it) agree on this.
7. Minor and miscellaneous agreements of T and SpL— The above
may serve as samples of the secondary’ connexions between T and the
Jain versions. Attentive students of my Critical Apparatus will note many
other verbal correspondences, lai’ge^ and small, between T and Spl (not
to mention Pn, which as we have seen used both of these texts). Let it
be clearly understood that I do not think it possible definitely to prove
any such relations by half a dozen instances, even as striking as those
which I have quoted. Conclusive proof can only be furnislit by a much
larger collection of examples, which considerations of space forbid my
furnishing here. They can easily be found by those who wish to find them
in my Critical Apparatus. They include even agreements in the smallest
details of language, as for instance I § 3, where T, Spl, Pn, and read
dik^inatye janapade (Pn ®ye§u °pade§u), but SP and H daksinapathe,
which is shown by tbe Arabic DSTB’ (with variants, abundantly pointing
to a Bkt. word ending in -patha) to be the original Pailcatantra reading.
Or again I § 4, where SP and Pn (P^ evidently following bis third source,
independent of T and Splj read sarthavabab prativasati sma (H vanik,
V. 1. adds mahEdhano, prativasati [Hm and v. 1. of Hp nivasati]), while T
and Spl read 4re§bbiputro (Spl vanikpiitvo) babhuva. The independent
agreement of SP and Pn determihes the original Pailcatantra; T and Spl
apparently inherit a secondary reading from Ur-T. Or, to add one last
example from a verse, I vs 173;
pita yE yadi vS bhi'Itgi putro va yadi yE suhrt
prIi?adrohakar§i rajfia hantavya bhutim iccbata.
With certain variants in tbe second half vei’se we are not now concerned.
The first half verse is read exactly as here printed in SP, N, H, and Pn,
thus establishing tlie origiiaal Paflcatanti’a, since Pp, is independent of
SP &c. T and Spl read thus in the first pSda, but in the second they
read bbEryS putro (Spl transposing, putro hUvjE) ’thava suhrt. Of course,
the agi*eement between T and Spl here, in the case of a verse, might be
due to the fact that the verse was otherwise known in this fox’m, as a
floating proverbial stanza. But the numerous similar* agreements between
the same two versions make it seem more likely that they inherited this
foiTn of the verse from their common secondary archetype.
CHAPTER V
CRITIQUE OF HERTEL’S VIEWS OF INTER-
RELATIONSHIP OF VERSIONS
General remarks on Hertel’s views of tke Paficatantra versions.
— With the exceptions noted in my last chapter, I helieA^e
that all the Paficatantra versions dealt with in my study are
independent of each other. That is, they are related only thru
the original Paficatantra; they are not offshoots, in whole or
in part, of any secondary archetypes. As has already been
intimated several times, I find myself differing very markedly
in this respect from Professor Johannes Hertel. Since he has
in the past devoted more labor than any other man to studying
this subject; since his opinions very naturally and properly
command wide-spread attention; and since they are accepted
by many as proved facts, it seems necessary to devote a special
chapter to shewing the extent to which I think them erroneous,
and the reasons for this opinion. In doing this I shall have to
repeat to a considerable extent my previously publisbt study
of HertePs views [American Journal of Philology, 36. 253 ff. ;
year 1915). In the matters covered by that study I shall try
to summarize as much as possible, referring to that place for
a fuller statement.
It will, I trust, be understood that I am actuated by no
desire to detract from the value of Hertel’s work, or by any
other personal considerations. I recognize gratefully the great
debt which I owe to Hertel, and not only I, but all students
of the Paficatantra, for his laborious editions and translations.
I regret the necessity of differing from him so radically, even on
purely impersonal and scientific questions. But such differences
of opinion as I have must be stated sharply and definitely, ^
the more because of the striking assurance with which Hert^
states his views. He admits not the slightest question of any
part of his genealogical table of Paficatantra versions. He
regards every part of it as absolutely and irrefutably proved,
90 Chapter Y: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions
and draws sweeping and important conclusions from it, using all
parts of it as establislit facts in demolishing his critics. There
are, indeed, some parts of it which are sound and indisputable.
But there are other parts which seem to me to rest on purely
subjective interpretations and over-hasty generalizations from
a few more than doubtful cases. It is necessary to separate the
false from the true. And to do so is a surprisingly easy task, in
my opinion. When carefully analyzed, there is amazingly little
sound evidence for several of Herters allegations — considering
the comparative certainty of some of his other conclusions.
Points in Hertel’s genealogical table of versions which this
chapter will try to disprove. — I shall now undertake to show
the unsoundness of four points in Hertel’s Pancatantra genealogy,
namely: L The supposed lost version ‘‘t,” archetype of all
existing versions, but containing certain definite corruptions.
11. The supposed archetype “ K,” from which Hertol thinks
all versions except TantraldiySyika are descended. III. The
supposed archetype ‘‘N-W,” from which he thinks Pahlavi, the
Ur-SP (and its relatives), and Simplicior are descended. All those
three supposed archetypes are, I think, mythical.^ IV. Hertel
^ Of minor importance is another supposedly lost archetype, which Hertel
calls and which I think is also imaginary. He says p. 432):
‘^Zwischen n-w [by which he means what I call “Ur-SP,” the common
archetype of SP, K, and H] nnd SP liegt eine, ganz bestiramte Mangel
(Kormptelen und Mcken) aufweisende Hs. n-w^; diese MSngel sind nach
reichem hs. Material in der Einleitung zu meiner Angrgabe des SP S. XXXYI —
XLTH und 8. XLYI — LI festg^estellt,” A careful study of the pages referred
to reveals not the slightest sign of any evidence that supports this statement.
I find there a discussion of a series of supposed corruptions in all SP manu-
scripts. Aside from the fact that many of the eases are more than doubtful,
not one of them, even if we granted Hertel’s contentions, would prove the
existence of the intermediate archetype “ n-w^ ” between “ n-w ” (5= Ur-SP)
and SP itself. And that for two reasons. 1. In most of the cases the Nepalese
Vionsion agrees with the best mss. of SP, which fact Hertel overlooks. Con-
sequently, if there really was a “ corruption ” it most according to Hertel’s
own theories go back to his “ m-w,” and cannot have been introduced be-
tween “ u-w ” and the SP^ 2, In the remaining cases there is nothing whatever
to show that the corruptions, or changes, were not introduced in the SP
itself, that is in the manuscript of the original redactor ofSP. There is no
need to a^ume any older archetype such as the imaginary “ n-w h”— Since
this point is of very minor importance, 1 merely note it here in passing
and shall not refer to it again.
llertel’s proofs insufficient iu (juunlily
91
believes that the ^ subrecension of Tantrakhyayika was inter-
polated from an outside version — an offshoot of his supposed
archetype K ” — and that Ta is the only pure representative
of the Tantrakhyayika tradition. I believe that if anything the
reverse is the case; that is, that is on the whole a rather
fuller and better representative of the Tantrakhyayika tradition
than Ta ; and that neither one shows any signs of interpolation
from any other version of the Pancatantra.
Hertel’s proofs are insufficient in quantity even if they were
individually sound. — I shall try to show that the arguments
which Hertel advances for his “K,” and “N-W”ai’che-
types are individually inconclusive. It seems to me, however,
that they are open to this more general criticism : tlie number
of instances he adduces is too small to prove anything. He has
produced about half a dozen cases af alleged common corrup-
tions to support his archetype ^^t,” about ten for “K,” and
only two for “N-W.” Even if it were true (as it is not) that
in these few instances identical corruptions have occurred in
the versions as assumed by Hertel, it is quite possible to
believe that these few changes crept in independently in the
versions which show them. They need not go back to common
archetypes containing these corruptions.*’ Hindu literary
tradition is too complicated to be settled thus lightly. In no
work of the size of the Pancatantra could interrelationship of
the versions he determined by any half-dozen or dozen
agreements or disagreements, however striking; and Hertehs
are for the most part not striking at all, but infinitesimal
(concerning petty changes of a syllable or two in individual
words). By such agreements the close connexion of any two
different subrecensions of any Hindu work could be proved. I
illustrated this in my article AJP. 36. 275 ff. (for other illustra-
tions of inconclusive agreements see my Critical Apparatus
passim, arid especially Chapter VI, end, of this introduction). I
pointed out there that by just such reasoning as Hertel uses
one could prove that Ta and SPa go back to a common arche-
type different from SP^ and Tp; or that T and the Nepalese
Pancatantra are more closely related than SP and the Nepalese;
or any other conceivable absurdity. Since it is obvious to
anyone who has ever lookt at the versions that such conclumons
S)2 Chapter V : Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions
ivould be unwarranted, I think it is thereby indicated that
Ilertel’s methods are unsafe. This is their reductio ad ahsurdum.
Real genetic relationship must rest on much broader conside-
rations than this: on sweeping and extensive changes in the
original plan of the work as a whole, or on extensive and
far-reaching verbal agreements (including a very large number
of common corruptions or changes in detail). On such broad
and sound considerations Hertel bases his conclusions rea'ardiiiir
the relationships of SF, N, and H, for instance. (See e. g. his
Pane. p. 4B3 ff. Note the contrast between the unmistakable
cogency and effectiveness of the evidence there produced, and
that which I am about to quote regarding ^^t,” “K,” and
‘‘N-W.”) But nothing even remotely resembling that sort of
evidence has yet been produced by Hertel in sup])ort of the
conclusions with whieJi we are now dealing. The reason for
this omission is indicated in the next paragraph: such evidence
does not exist.
These theories are not only unproved hut unprovahle. — It
should be distinctly understood that my disbelief in these theories
of HertePs is not based solely on the insufficiency of the
evidence which he has advanst in support of them. I have
kept them constantly in mind in working thru the versions
myself, and have carefully searcht for signs of their correct-
ness; and, in vain. While, therefore, this chapter will naturally
contain, for the most part, merely rebuttal of HertePs alleged
evidence, it must not be supposed that that is the whole story.
An unbiast study of the entire Fancatantra in all its older
versions has convinst me that these theories are not only
unproved, but unprovable. Everything points against them.
Pinal conviction of this fact can only come from a survey of
all the evidence, which is gathered in my Critical Apparatus.
I think that anyone who, with Open mind, studies that evidence,
can hardly fail to agree with me.
I. The supposed archetype tF’
What is meant by this “ t According to Hertel, he has
proved in filr jeden Philologen einwandfreier Weise ” (Pa^c.
p. 443) that all existing versions of the Fancatantra go back
to an archetype which showed certain definite corraptions.
The supposed archetype “ t
93
Incidentally, he emends all these passages in lii$ edition of
Tantrfikliyayika, making it read as he thinks the origincal
Paiicatantra did, altho according to his own theory tlie Tantra-
khyayika mast have had and retained these corruptions '' in
‘his text. But let that pass. Hertel quotes (Tantrnkhyayika,
Einleitung, p. 34 ff.) just seven cases in which he thinks
corruptions of this “ archetype t ” can be found. Tliey mostly
concern very minor points — changes of one or two letters in
a single word. In my opinion it is utterly unsound to base
such sweeping conclusions on so little evidence, even if the
points were individually reliable. But they are far from that.
Let us consider the seven cases seriatim,
1, pratyayito, T ‘‘A 149;” Reconstruction 11 § 62.— After tho long
conversation in wliicli the crow sues for the friendship of the mouse, at
last the mouse yields. The versions (see exact references in my Critical
Apparatus) read :
T tac cliriitva hiranyo ’bravit: pratyarthito (so mss.) ’haiii bhavata.tatlia
nama.
SP hiranyakah: pratyayito ’haih bhavati; bhavatu bhavadabhimatam.
H hiranyako bahir nibsrtyaba: apyayito ’haiii bhavatanena vacanamytona.
(After insertion:) tad bhavatu bhavato ’bhimatam (H Mii. adds eva).
Spl has a wholly different passage, reflected also in Pn, which however
adds at tho end of it: abravit*. bhadra, pratyayito ’hath bhavata.
So cf. perhaps 76b krtvasvasaih ca tena sab-
Ks (abbreviated equivalent of a much longer passage that includes this)
sakhyaih yatnena vidadhe tena visrabdhain (Mahk. ms. te sa-, em. to
nitva, visrambhain) akhuna.
Sy Die Maus spracli: Ich will dich in Freundschaft annehmen, denn ich
habe noclx nie eino Bitte enttauscht.
Ar (Cheikho) The mouse said: I accept your friendship, for never in any
case have I withheld one in need from his necessity.
The reading of the T mss, would mean “I have been challenged (or,
opposed) by your worship.” It contains the word pratyarihitOf which
Hertel emends to pratyayito^ I have been made confident (or, my trust
has been won; or, possibly, I have been convinst, persuaded) by your
worship.” That the original Paiicatantra read pratyayito here seems clear
to me also. Both SP and Pi? have the correct reading pratyayito^ which
to my way of thinking is good evidence in itself. But since Hertel cannot
allow any other version to have a more original reading than TanW-
kliySyika, he must needs show that their readings are fortunate correc-
tions” of a corruption found in their archetypes. How does he do this?
As for l^Uruabhadra, he simply asserts it, without a shadow even of an
attempt to prove it. And this Is '‘proof hy strictest philological method!”
94 Chapter V i Critique of HerteVs views of interrelationship of versions
As for SP, his proof is most curious. Hitopadesa^ the nearest relative
of SP, has (as quoted above) apydyito. This word “kommt in seinen
Schriftzugen den anderen Lesarten so nahe, daB man wird annehmen
rnussen, es sei aus einer Korniptel hervorgegangen, die Narayana [the
author of Hit.] konjekturell besserte.” (Tantr. Einl. p. 35.) Because Hito-
padesa has a secondary reading that comes fairly close to the original
one, therefore its relative, BP, which has the original reading, must go
back to an archetype which had a secondary one!! It seems to me that
comment is hardly necessary on such argumentation.
Coming now to Pahlavi: Hertel assumes that it contains,in the phrase
‘‘for I have never disappointed anyone’s desire” (or the like), the equi-
valent of a Sanskrit word prdrthito^ instead of pratydyito. He then argues
that Pa either had pratyarthito (as in T) in its Sanskrit archetype, and
mistranslated it as if it were prdrthito, or else that its Sanskrit archetype
actually read prdrthito, which is very close, at least, to pratyarthito. Thus
he seeks to show that Pa also goes back to a corrupt substitute for
pratydyito.
Now, it is dangerous to argue so confidently about Pahlavi’s rendering
of a single, more or less vague word. I would suggest that the following
interpretation of Pahlavi’s reading is at least as likely to be right as
Hertel’s. Pahlavi (as quoted above) begins the speech of the mouse with
the words “I accept your friendship.” This is a reasonably close para-
phrase of pratydyito %am hhavafdj “You have won my confidence,” or more
literally “I have been made trustful by you.” The following expression
of Pahlavi, “for I have never disappointed anyone’s desire,” may also pass
for a slight distortion of the following phrase of SP and H, (tad) hhavaiu
hhavadabhimatam^ “ (so) let what you desire be fulfilled.” This is no moi'e
of a departure from the original than constantly occurs in Pa. Pa general-
izes the pai'ticular statement of the original; but the word “desire” or
“ need,”* found persistently in all the Pa versions, may be more reasonably
equated with the Sanskrit ahhimatam, actually found in SP and H, than
with the imaginary *prdrthito^ not found in any Sanskrit version.
Were it not for Hertel’s unwillingness to recognize the possibility that
any other version may preserve the original as against a corruption in T,
I am confident that he would never have been led into such argumentation
as the above. To me, at least, it seems very clear that (1) pratydyito^ the
correct reading, was inlierited directly from the original Paficatantra into
the Ur-SP, into the archetype wliicli Pii used here, and probably into the
archetype of Pa; (2) H by a slight secondary corruption changed it into
dpydyito, with consequent further slight additions to the sentence; (3) T
(at least our manuscripts of it) by a somewhat more markt change sub-
stituted pratyarthito for it— It is highly likely, too; that (4) So and Ks
point to an archetype containing the correct pratydyito (see their readings
quoted above).
For a fuller discussion of this passage see my article, AJP* 36. 257 if.
2. The verse T 11. 87; Eecoiistrnction 11 vs 53.— This vs occurs only
in T, SP, N, and Pn. Tlierefore, like the preceding ease (in which Hertel
Archetype t. the verse T II. H7; Reconstruction II va 53 95
quite ignores the Bp versions), it would j)rove nothing as to an archetype
of all the versions, even if Hertel wore right about it. At most it could
only prove something about a common archetype of T, SP (N), and Pn.
But it proves nothing of the sort. The verse reads, in my reconstruction:
tasya krte hudhab ko nu kuryat karma vigarhitam
yasya ’nubandhab pdpiydn adhoni^io vii)adyate.
The italicized words are not certain. Variants: a, Pn iasyah kfte; T
tasydrthe 'ko mt mbudhali\ SP ed. kfti kak ca (a iafhd krte or taikftera)
hii}^ ko Hra\ N also ’tra for otherwise as text, b, N vigarhan^m. c, Pn
(and T ed. by em.) 'mibandhdt (T mss. as text). Pn pdpi^wn\ SP sar^
vdrthaU, SPa parnrthali, pdrdrtliyali. d, Pn naro ni^'hd’Hi prapadP\ SP, N
sa emikah IcYti pumdn (N sudliih)*
The variations are, it will be noted, more extensive than usual. In
addition to those mentioned, T transposes the two half-stanzas, putting
our cd before ab. Hertel sa^^s on this subject; “ Da aber im Sanskrit der
Relativsatz gewohnlich vorausgeht, so ist Sir. (i. e, T] in diesem Punkte
sicher urspriinglich.” The italics are mine; tliey call attention to the value
of the word “ sicher ” in Hertel’s vocabulary. On the contrary, the very
fact that the relative clause usually precedes makes it easy to see how
a verse originally composed with the relative clause following might
naturally he changed, in a secondaiy version, to the more normal order.
The principle of the lectio facilior is familiar enuf. It is not so easy to
conceive a later version (or, as I believe, two independent versions, SP
and Pn) changing from the vimal to the unusual order.
As to the variations in the words of the stanza: the first half verse
is establisht by the agreement of Pn with the unrelated N (Pn merely
has tasydh for tasya^ misinterpreting the word as referring to the word
seiikd in the preceding vs, and N changes vigarhitam to vigarharham). In
the second half verse the versions all vary more or less; but the reading
of T (mss.) makes good sense. Hertei’s emendation anuhandhat is not
called for; SP and N agree witli the reading of the T mss. and this is
quite correct The word means ‘‘consequence,” not either “Anhang” or
‘‘Absieht” Tl^e noun to be supplied with tasya and yasya (none of the
versions express it) is something like “body” or “life,” as is shown by
the preceding context The verse means: “What wise man, pray, would
perform a repulsive action for the sake of that, tlie consequence of
■which is evil and comes to naught when it gets to the lower world [after
death]y”
Hiere is, then, no reason to question the correctness of I s reading in
pada c (T’s a). But even if Hertel were right in thinking that
must he read for anuhandhali^ it would not prove that the archetype of
all versions was corrupt, nor even the archetype of T, SP, and which
alone have this vs. For Pi? has the reading which Hertel beliCTes to have
been original. He must have got it from somewhere. It rwiains for
to prove that he “restored” an original reading “happily,” ate finding
a coiTupt reading in his archetype.
96 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions
Prom the fact that 8pl and Pa do not contain this verse Hertel strangely
concludes that it was corrupt in their archetypes. But both Spl and Pa
Omit a great many verses of the original. They furnish absolutely no
basis for such an inference.
S. bliojanam, T p. 00, 1. 9; Beconstruetioii I § 570,— In the story of
the Iron-eating Mice (1. 15) a rich merchant cheats his poor friend of some
iron which had been left on deposit, telling the owner that the mice had
eaten it The owner pretends to believe it. The lying merchant’s further
course is described in T thus:
asav api suparihr^-^ahrdayali (p paritnsta®) padyadipural.isaraih tasya
l^ujaiii kartnm arabdhavan bhojanaiii ca prarthitavan.
The Syriac has: Jener aber freiite sich, daB ihm der Kanfmann Glauben
schenkte. Und nachdem er ihn eingeladen, an dem Tage in seinem Hause
zxjL speisen,— &c. (Arabic similarly.)
Nothing remotely resembling the last clause is found in other
version except Somadeva, which reads: prarthayam asa ca tato vanijo
’smat sa bhojanam, so ’pi saiiitu^ya tat tasmai pradatuih pratyapadyata.
The words which concern us are hliojanarri ca prarthitavan in the
Tantrakhyayika. Taken in the most natural sense, they Avould seem to
mean (as Hertel rightly says) “ and [the rich man] askt [the poor man]
for food,” Of course this is nonsense; this cannot be what the passage
was intended to mean. It seems impossible to assume a change of subject;
unless a word has fallen out, the subject of prarthitavan must be the same
as that of the immediately preceding arabdhavan^ namely, the rich man.
But if the rich man is the subject, then the meaning must obviously be
“and invited him to a meal,” And this is exactly what the Pahlavi has!
So far I am in agreement with Hertel; it is scarcely conceivable that
the Tantrakhyayika mimds any other meaning than that which the
Pahlavi has. Now, says Hertel, we must then understand prdrthay in the
sense of nimantray^ [“ask”==] “invite,” a sense in which it seems to be
otherwise unrecorded, but which to English-speaking persons will not
seem a violent change of meaning, in view of the fact that our verb
“ ask ” is so used, I think Hertel is right in this too. But when Hertel
proceeds to assert that we must emend bhojanam to bhojane^ because
nimmtray “invite” is regularly construed with the locative, I cannot
follow him. We are assuming a hitherto unknown meaning for the verb
prdrthay \ how can we know what its construction would be? Is it not
a priori qiiite conceivable that the accusative of tlxe goal sliould be used
after a verb of summoning or inviting? You invite a person to a meal.
Hertel seems to me to strain at a gnat after swallowing a camel; it is
really mtich more of an act of faith to accept the meaning he assumes
for praHhay than to allow the use of the accusative after it.
The exceptional sense in which prdrthay is used here (if Hertel is right)
may be assumed to be the reason for Somadeva’s rewriting of the passage
in sucli a way as to make the poor man really “ ask ” (=p beg, bittm]
the rich man for food {hhojanan'r^ note tlie acc%i^ative in Bomadeval). This
Archetype ‘‘t”; The tree-eracle, I §51-7
97
cannot he original if the Pahlavi is original; and, as 1 have indicated,
it seems clear to me (as to Hertel) that Tantrakhyayika supports Pahlavi.
I therefore agree with Hertel as to the interpretation of this passage,
hut not as to the necessity for emendation of the Tantrakhyayika manu-
scripts. But even if he were right on that point; even if Ave had to assume
that the Ur-Paficatantra read hhojam; what right has Hertel to assume
that the Pahlavi goes back to a corrupt archetype? The Pahlavi has
exactly the meaning which Hertel says the original must have had. What
possible ground is there for asserting that this correct meaning rests on
a gliickliche Besserung,” rather than on an inheritance of the correct
reading from the Xlr-Paheatantra directly? Hertel states none whatever.
Of course there is none—imless you regard as already proved the very
proposition which Hertel is trying to prove. In short, Hertel argues in
a perfect circle without realizing it. One is again constrained to assume
that Hertel would not have hit upon this curious view that Pahlavi must
go back to a corruption that had been changed back again to the original
reading, were it not for his desire to show that all texts of the Paficatmitra
must be at least as corrupt as T in every case. Since he believes (wrongly,
in my opinion) that T is here corrupt, therefore Pa must rest on a
‘‘gliickliche Besserung;” otherwise we should have Pa preserAung the
original better than T, and that would never do!
4. The tree-oracle, T p. 57, L 15 ff.; Eeconstruetion I § 54:7.—This
concerns the emendation—clever and plausible enuf— which Hertel makes
in T’s text of Dharmabuddhrs speech after the fake oracle has declared
him guilty of theft. On this passage see my Critical Apparatus ad loc.
Whatever the true text of TantrMiyayika may hav^e been at this point, it
seems to me that there is no reason whatever for assuming its originality
as against the agreement of the other Aversions. On the contrary, T’s version
sounds very bizarre and badly constructed. Hertel’s only argument in its
favor seems to be that after the supposed oracle has declared Dhama-
buddhi guilty, he must pretend to confess guilt before taking action
leading to a demonstration of his innocence. I do not know where
Hertel gets this extraordinary legal principle. I have never heard of it,
in Hindu law or any other. It seems to me clear that TanMkhyEyika
has a secondary version at this point. K^emendra folloAVs T; the other
versions all agree substantially, with the minor exceptions noted in my
discussion of the passage, L c*
At any rate, it is begging the whole question to assume, as Hertel
does, that because the other versions have no mention of a snake in
this passage, therefore they must go back to a text which agreed with Ihe
T mss. in having the supposedly corrupt i*^eading aJiam^ which H^tel would
emend to dhi^n, Hertel forgets that in the same passage, further down,
the T mss. contain the uncorrupt and unmistakable word
According to his theory, then, the other versions must have ignored
word, the it was not corrupted. Their failure to mention the snake, there*
fore, cannot possibly be due merely to the supposed corruption of mMm to
uAam. Such a tlieory would have to explain why they ignored
Edg^erton, Paiicatjmtm. II. 7
98 Chapter V : Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions
5. The crocodile and the ape, T A286; Eeconstruclion lY § 36.—
On this see page 102 below. It concerns another passage in which Ilertel
emends the mss. of T, and assumes that all other versions must go back
to an at least equally corrupt archetype. I shall show, on the contrary,
that the entire clause containing the word in question is probably an
interpolation inT; and that at any rate there is no reason to prefer T’s
text to that of the other versions; quite the contrary. But since there is
in the other texts no trace whatever of tliis passage in T, whether corrupt
or uncorrupt, there is certainly no reason for assuming that they all go
back to the corrupt version of it. All the texts frequently omit original
passages where there is not the slightest reason to assume corruptions.
6. The verse T 111.125; Reconstruction III vs 107.— This verse,
which occurs only in T, SP, N, and Pn (so that again it could prove
nothing for an archetype of ‘‘ all ” versions), is very violently emended
by Hertel, in a way which results in a destruction of what seems to me
the obvious intent For the readings, see my Critical Apparatus. The
preceding prose (III §300) says: “Royalty goes with [belongs to, comes
naturally to] a man who is generous, wise, and heroic.” This verse then
proceeds: “When a man is generous, heroic, and wise, people [retainers,
attendants, subjects] attach themselves to him; and these ‘people’ con-
stitute his superiority. One who has [this] superiority gets riches, from
riches comes fortune [majesty, m]; one who has fortune has authority,
and from that comes royalty.” It seems to me clear that the three qualities
of generosity, wisdom, and heroism are the joint starting-point of the
logical development leading to royalty. All versions, a.s we have them,
support this view. Hertel, by inserting in pada a the word vidya, utterly
destroys this logical development by making “ wisdom,” one of the three
coordinates, develop out of the other two, “ heroism ” and “ generosity.”
His “emendation” results in the following meaning: “When a man is
generous and heroic he gets wisdom [! a curious dictum!]; in a man who
is wise and intelligent viidiues acquire their real value ” &c. (reading with
T in the second pada). Why does a man who is generous and heroic
necessarily get wisdom?
As to the readings of the several texts: Purnabhadra has the correct
reading in the first pida; SP and T spoil the meter by omitting ca (by
haplography?— the next word begins with the syllable which is very
like oa in DevanSgari and not unlike it in ^^iradi). The correct reading
in the second pada is furnisht by SPa and H, largely supported by Pn.
In c all texts agree. In d T and P^ have the correct reading, apparently,
altho possibly the readings of SP« and H might be considered.
Accordingly, my opinion of this stanm is that the “ emendation ” which
Hertel would make in the texts of the versions that contain this verse
is nothing but a “ Schlimmhesserung,” which spoils the apparent original
sense of the verse. In spite of the divergences of the vaiious texts, each
pada is correctly preserved in some one of them, at least
7. The vs T 1. 174:; Reeonstriiction I vs 163,— Here Hertel apparently
assumes (SP p. LVl f.) two corruptions of his “ t,” namely, in pSda b the
Summary and conclusion regarding “ t
99
unmetrical bhavitavyam for hhdvyam^ and in pada c anugamyo for anu-
hawpyo, (For the readings of all texts see my Critical Apparatus.)
As to the first: the ai*ya meter requires hlidvyam^ not bhavitavyam. All
mss. of T nevertheless read bhavitavyam. Four mss. of SPa read likewise.
All other (twelve) mss. of SP, including several of SPa, and one of them.
K, the oldest and best according to Hertel, read correctly bhdvyam. N, the
nearest relative of SP, also has bhdvyavi\ so has Pp. The verse occurs
nowhere else in Sanskrit. Will anyone believe that on the basis of the
corruption bhavitavyam in T and four SPa mss., Hertel assumes that this
corruption must have been in the archetype of all Paficatantra versions,
ignoring the correct reading of all the other versions? It sounds incredible*,
but this is just what he says. Note especially that the ms. K of SP has
bhdvyamt, and compare the following.
Secondly: anukampyo is read by Tj3, Pn, and N (with Idie slight cor-
riiption anulcainpo in N). It is supported as to meaning by the Pahlavi
(Old Syriac, lass dir’s . . , leid tun urn ihn ”). Ta has anugamyo^ SP adhi-
gamyo (v, 1. of « abJii^; K, the ‘‘ best ms.,” anugamyo). As to this Hertel
says ‘‘ durch K scheint auch das anugamyo des 3. Pada in [= T j a
filr den Archetypos von SP. gesichert'' (Italics mine.) Compare this with
Hertel’s conclusion about the preceding question, bhavitavnam or bhavyamj
and what do we find? There SP’s ms. K with eleven others read hhdvyam,
correctly, hut never mind, the incorrect bhavitavyam is certainly the
reading of the SP archetype— because wo must show that the archetype
was incorrect, lest Tantrakhyayika appear less correct than another version.
Here, the ms. K is the only SP ms. which has the reading anugamyo \ and
the Nepalese has the correct reading anu'kam2)[y]o. But since Ta has anu-
gamyo, the reading of the single ms. K is this time enuf to make anu-
gamyo ^‘gesichert” for the SP archetype! Perfect agreements of half a
dozen versions outside of the Tantrakhyayika mean nothing at all; but
the agreement of a single ms. of one subrecension of one vei'sion, with
the sacred Tantrakhyayika a (altho Tp agrees with the others), is enuf—
even if it is a had reading— to establish absolutely the archetype of all
of them !
I need hardly say that in my opinion the evidence shows clearly that
the archetype of ‘‘all versions” read bhdvyam in h, witli all versions
except T and a few SP mss., and anukampyo in c, with Tp, Pp, N, and
Pa (at least three independent sources), while the variant anugamyo of Ta
and the variants adhigamyo &c., and (in one case) anugamyo^ of various
SP mss., are corruptions.
Summary and oouolusion regarding ‘‘ t.” — 0£ the seven oases
adduced by Hertel in support of his <^orrupt archetype
The first caucerns a secondary reading in T alone. The correct
reading is found in SP, Pp; a different corruption in H; P^
and Bp are uncertain but indicate, if anything, that they go
back to the correct and original reading.
1*
100 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions
The second concerns what is not really a corruption at all;
the reading of the mss. of T (supported by SP) is correct.
Hertel merely failed to understand it. The transposition of the
two half-verses in T is secondary. The verse in question is found
only in T, SP, N, Ppi, and therefore could prove nothing for
an archetype of all versions.”
The third also concerns what is probably no corruption in
T; In any case Pa’s version is correct in meaning and there
is no reason to assume a corruption in it or its archetype.
Besides T and Pa the passage occurs only in So and can there-
fore prove nothing for an archetype of “ all versions.”
The fourth concerns what is in all probability a secondary
expansion in T, otherwise found only in Ks. The corruption
which Hertel assumes in the T mss. would not, in any case,
explain the different versions of the other texts. That is, even
if T is original, the other texts do not indicate descent from
the corrupt version of that original which exists in the T mss.
according to Hertel.
The fifth also concerns what is in all probability a secondary
expansion in T. It will be shown later that T is certainly un-
original, and inconsistent with itself, in the context at this
point. The other versions agree closely in sense and there is
no reason to doubt their originality. As in the preceding case,
there is, anyhow, no reason for supposing that the other texts
are connected in any way witli the corrupt version of the T
mss., even if Hertel were otherwise right in his reasoning.
The sixth again concerns a passage which Hertel misunder-
stands. His assumption as to what the original read is impos-
sible. There is no common corruption in the versions. This
passage too occurs only in T, SP, N, and P:gi, so that it could
prove nothing for an archetype of ‘^all versions.”
The seventh concerns two words in a single verse, found
only in T, SP, N, P?., and Pa. The first word is found correctly
in all versions but T (and a few mss. of SP). The second word
is found correctly in TP, P^i, N, and the archetype of Pa; it
is changed only in Ta and SP, and only one ms. of SP has
the same change as Ta.
Such is the evidence from which Hertel draws such sweep-
ing conclusions! In four of the seven cases (1, 2, 3, and 7)
The suiniimed archetype “ K
101
of the supposed corruptions, Hertel himself assumes '’gliick-
liche Besserungen ” in at least one, and usually several, versions.
This is enuf to make us suspicious. In two of the others (4
and 5) the agreement of the non-T versions is purely negative ;
they do not have a passage found in T in which Hertel assumes
a corruption; and he assumes that they left it out, or substituted
something else, because it was corrupt in their archetype (of
course a gratuitous assumption, since there is no version that
does not frequently leave out minor details in which there is
no reason to suspect corruption). The remaining case (6) is
the one and only case in which all versions containing the
passage (namely T, SP, N, and Pjq; not ^‘all Pancatantra
versions! ”) agree positively on a reading which Hertel thinks
is corrupt; but I think, on the contrary, that if they agreed
in reading Herteks “ emendation,” we should almost be justified
in discarding it, so improbable is it.
Not one case offers even plausible grounds for assuming the
archetype ‘‘t,” or for supposing that all existing versions go
back to a corrupt archetype.
IL Tlie supposed archetype K
What is meant by the archetype — A much more im-
portant matter than “ t,” because its consequences are far more
disastrous, is Hertel’s opinion that all Pancatantra versions ex-
cept Tantrakhyayika, — to wit, SP, N, H, So, Ks, Pa, and Spl and
Pia except where they borrowed from T, — go back to a single
archetype, called K,” which differed from the archetype of
T and in particular contained certain definite corruptions. Hertel
further believes that T(3 was to some extent contaminated with
an offshoot of this K,” so that only Ta is wholly independent
of it. If true, this would obviously be of the utmost importance
for weighing the evidence of the Pancatantra versions and
reconstructing the original If true, it would utterly vitiate my
reconstruction; for agreements between all the other versions
would be only equal in weight, for the purposes of the re-
construction, to the evidence of Tantrakhyayika a alone. That
is precisely what Hertel claims. As to the means of proving
it, he seems to recognize that it is necessary to demonstrate
common changes or corruptions in all of these versions. No
102 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions
amount of agreements in original inheritances would prove
anything. Furthermore, it is, or should he, clear that the same
change must be demonstrated in all the versions in question
in order to have demonstrative force. And I should add: it
must be a change which could not easily he supposed to have
occurred independently. It is likewise my opinion that a very
considerable number of such common corruptions would be
required to demonstrate Hertehs point. In both of these two
latter respects it will he seen that Hertel’s demonstration is
seriously lacking. But furthermore, I hope to be able to show
that HertePs cases are individually unsound. I think that all
of them permit, and most of them demand, other interpretations.
I shall now proceed to consider one by one the cases which
Hertel thinks support his hypothesis of an archetype “ K
1. The ape and the crocodile; Book IV, frame, particularly T A 286;
Reconstruction IV § 36.—In my above-mentioned article, 36. 259ff.,
I have discust this passage at length. Except for one point, which I shall
mention presently, I believe that all. I say there is sound; and to save
space I shall try to be briefer here. The main point is that in all versions
except T the crocodile invites the monkey to come to his own house,
which (in Pa and the Jain versions) is located on a lovely island where
there are beautiful trees full of luscious fruits. This Hertel considers
absurd, because the crocodile’s house “ liegt ja im Wasser (How does
Hertel know this? In Pa and Jn, on the contrary, the crocodile distinctly
states that his house was on the island. Suppose this was a lie; what
does Hiat matter? How could the ape know where the crocodile’s home
was?) — In T, on the other hand, the crocodile says (A 286, Reconstruction IV
§ 86) yo ’yam ofUardPipaJcah samudramadhye, atra vuLydhhmamyduvana-
satfipmm ^Upap^dyas tisro ndryo (so mss.; Hertel emends to vanaryo)
df^pUrvdlh (read probably ’df°?) pratwasanti srnaj amptasvddatulyali Icah
pavfh^oBadTsds tarcmal}. tairdhanh imvh pp^Jiam dropya prdpaydmUu—Jn
the other versions there is no mention of the three “ she-apes ” (? mss.
women,” females This is another of the corruptions ” which Hertel
ascribes to his t,” and assumes to have been in the archetype of all
the versions (see p. 98). The sense of the above passage is closely re»
produced in both Pa and the Jain versions, except that the clause about
the ndryo (or vdnaryo) is omitted. HerteP assumes that the redactor of
“ K ” found it in his archetype t,” btit left it out because with tlie
corrupt reading ndryo it made poor sense. Since that time it has been
pointed out by a pupil of mine, Mias Ruth Norton, that this clause is
evidently a close imitation of a clause which occurs in the story of die
Ass without Heart and Ears (IV. 1); see my Critical Apparatus on IV § 65.
At that place, TV §65, the sentence is supported by other versions, and
clearly belongs to the original. Here it seems to me equally clear, after
Archetype “K”: The ape and the crocodile
103
Miss Norton’s observation, that T has borrowed the sentence (with very
slight adaptations) from that place. Such borrowings from one Pafica-
tantra story into another occur elsewhere (e. g, in T itself, see my Critical
Apparatus on I § 537, and p. 178 below), but are never to be attributed
to the original Paficatantra, I think, since they never occur in more than
one version. The original Paficatantra was not guilty of any such poverty
of invention; it did not need to borrow from itself.
Hertel tries, to be sure, to maintain that this motivation of the croco-
dile’s trick is for other reasons the only one which the original can have
had. He thinks that SP refers to it in the ape’s later lamentation (after
he had discovered the trick), our §42 and vs 14. But raga and ragin"
(vs 14; cf. Hertel, Tantr. Einl. p. 90) do not necessarily mean “ Greschlechts-
liebe ” and “ die Verliebten,” as Hertel renders them in order to carry
bis point. The Pahlavi versions (the only ones which have preserved an
equivalent of vs 14 besides SP and N) speak only of “ greediness,” and
that is clearly what SP means by rdga, since in SP there has been no
hint of the sex motif. It is greediness for the delicious fruits of § 36 that
is referred to; just as in the Jataka version of the same story, which
knows only fruits as tempting objects, not females.
For these reasons I now think that there is not a shadow of ground
for believing that the original Paficatantra had any mention of the sei
motif as used by the crocodile in seducing the ape. No version of ikis
widespread story has such a motifs so far as I know (in spite of Hertel,
op. cit. p. 90; for the story of Parisistaparvan 11. 720 ff. is clearly a ‘‘Tar-
Baby ” story — as Hertel himself indicates elsewhere, see DS.hnhardtj
Natursagen, 4. 27 if.-- and is not in any way connected with this motif).
Correct accordingly my tentative admission, AJP. 36. 261, top; when 1 wrote
that, I was still too much imprest by Hertel’s confident assertions.
The rest of my remarks I c. are devoted to pointing out that Hertel
in his haste overlookt an important fact about the Tantrakhyayika, which
breaks down the keystone of his arch, and incidentally proves that the
Tantrakhyayika, so far from being the “ only correct version,” is here
obviously corrupt and inconsistent with itself — a very bitter pill for
Hertel to swallow! The great superiority of T oyer the other versions
consists, according to Hertel, in the fact that T does not, like them, make
the “ absurd proposal ” that the ape should come to the crocodile’s house.
It is indeed true that no such words occur in the crocodile’s speeches
in T. But in T “ A 284,” our lY §§ 32 and 33, the ape is represented as
saying to the crocodile: yac ca bhavatdbhihitamj gfhagamanaddradar’'
mndikapdtrdbhisaTfibandhi mayd bhavdn na Ijtalh These words are
simple nonsense as the T stands, for the crocodile had said no such thing.
But they prove, for one who has eyes, that T goes back to a version
which did represent the crocodile as inviting the ape to come to his
house,— yes, and to see his wife too (which Hertel thinks is a peculiarly
inept idea). Either (1) words to this effect must have originally be^ put
into the crocodile’s mouth before this point (and been lost in T); or
(2)— and this seems to me much more likely, as shown by the other
104 Chapter V : Critique of lleriers views of interrelationship of versions
versions, q, v. in my Critical Apparatus— this passage of T, just quoted,
represents the very language originally spoken by the crocodile, and T
is corrupt only in attributing it to the ape. (I assume that T lost, by a
lacuna, our IV § 32, which the Pahlavi j^reserves, and in which the croco-
dile begins to speak: also our IV vs 8, of which reflexes are found in Pa
and So; and that then T tided to patch up our §33, originally a part
of the crocodile’s speech, by inserting yao ca hhamtabhihitam^ so as to
make it fit in the ape’s mouth; the redactor failing to note that the
crocodile had not said anything like the words which he makes the ape
quote from the crocodile. Note that T’s text has two serious gaps, which
Hertel also recognizes^ almost immediately after this place. Evidently the
archetype of all our T mss. was fragmentary in this vicinity.)
To summarize: instead of proving that all versions except T go back
to a single corrupt archetype at this point, the passage proves that most
of them are superior to T in two respects. (1) They present the crocodile's
invitation to the ape to visit his house in a rational and consistent form,
whereas T (does not leave it out, as Hertel hastily asserts, but) presents
it in a verhallhornt form, grossly inconsistent with itself. (2) They agree
with the Jatakas and other versions of the story in making the motif that
seduced the ape a desire for luscious fruits, not for sexual gratification.
T’s sentence referring to the latter motif was clearly not in the original
and was almost certainly borrowed from a passage in the story of the
Ass without Heart and Ears.^
2 In closing his discussion of this passage, Tantr. Einl. p. 94f., Hertel
alludes briefly to a few other points which he seems to think support his
“K” hypothesis. (1) In Reconstruction IV § 41, in various “K” versions,
the crocodile tells the ape that physicians and exorcists have recommended
an ape’s heart to cure his wife. In IV § 24 the wife’s friend had told the
crocodile that this remedy was a matter of secret knowledge among
women ” (this statement also in T). Hertel strangely regards this as an
inconsistency in the “ K ” versions. Of course it is nothing of the kind. In
his over-eagerness to make a point, Hertel, as in many other cases, quite
loses sight of the realities of the situation. In § 24 the wife’s friend is
deceiving the crocodile; in § 41 the crocodile is deceiving the ape; in
both cases a fraud is being practist. In reality the crocodile’s wife was
not sick at all, unless “heartsick” with jealousy of her husband. Vo one
had really prescribed an ape’s heart for her. The two different allegations
are both perfectly suited to the different situations, and both are undoubt-
edly parts of the original Pahcatantra; the failure of T to preserve § 41
is doubtless duo to the fragmentary state of its mss., and is in any case a
secondary omission. The female friend, speaking to the crocodile, naturally
alleges that the remedy of the ape’s heart is a feminine secret; that is
an argument to which a mere male can have no reply, whereas if she had
attributed it to physicians, the fraud might have been discovered hj the
crocodile. But when the crocodile speaks of the matter to the ape, he
naturally would not admit that he was proposing to kill his friend on the
Arch6ty])e “ K The verse T II. DO; Recoiistriictiou II vs 56 105
2, The verse T II. 00; Reconstruction II vs 55. -This verso is found
only in T, Pn, and the offshoots of Ur-SP (SP, N, H); no trace of it,
occurs in Pa, So, Ks, or Spl. Accordingly it could prove nothing for an
archetype of “all versions except T.” The reading clearly indicated for
the original is:
na svalpam apy adliyavasayahliiroh karoti vijfianavidhir giujaih hi
andhasya kiiii liastatalastliito 'pi iiivartayaty artham iha pradipah.
Thus, with variants which need not concern us now (see Crit. App.; I
agree with Hertel that the readings just quoted are indicated for the
original of SP, N, H, and Pji), all versions but T. T reads avyavasdya°
in a, and dndhyam for artham in d. These variations, as Hertel points
out, apparently originate in grapliic confusions due to the Sarada alphabet
Anyone but Hertel would consider it a natural inference, then, that the}^
originated in the only recension known to exist in Sarada mss., namely T.
Hertel, on the contrary, thinks they indicate that all the other versions
go back to a Sarada original, a hypothesis for which there is not a
scintilla of real evidence, and which is most improbable. —Hertel ffnds
the readings of T obviously superior. I cannot agree. The SP-N-IPPn
version means: ‘‘The acquisition of knowledge does not confer the least
advantage upon one who is afraid to take a firm stand. Does a light
confer any advantage upon a blind man here, even tho it be placed in
the palm of liis hand? " The T version means: ‘‘The acquisition . , .upon
one who is irresolute and fearful. Does a light remove the blindness of a
blind man ” &c. The T redactor read artham as *antham (which is graphi-
cally close to it in Sarada), and under the influence of the preceding
word andhasya assumed a mistake for andhyam^ ‘‘blindness;” this was
accom2)amed by a reinterpretation of nivarlayaty in the sense of “ remove,”
which the word may also have. There is no reason whatever for pre-
ferring T’s reading to that of the other texts. For a fuller discussion,
see AJr. 36. 262 if.
3. The verse T II. 25 ; Reconstruction II vs 15.— The verse is found
in all texts hut So and Ks. It reads:
satruna na hi saiiidadhyat susli^tenapi saiiidhina * ^
sutaptam api pSniyaih samayaty eva pavakam.
The only variants are: in a, Spl vdirii^d, T Mruiidpina^’^ in c, T ataptam
(ms. R diaptam)* Pa’s version supports that of the majority of Sanskrit
texts. — “With an enemy one should not ally himself, not even with a
very close alliance. Water, even tho heated very hot, still puts out fire.”
The heating of water very hot constitutes a very close approach to the
basis of an “old wives’ tale”; he attributes the prescription to reputable
medical authorities.— (2) All the remaining passages referred to L c. concern
features of the original which have disappeared or been changed in T*
I do not see how Hertel can imagine that they prove anything except the
imperfection of Tantrakhylyika. Every one of the features concerned fits
its context admirably, ^is Hertel seems tacitly to admit
106 Chapter Vj Critif][ue of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions
nature of fire -as close as water is capable of— and is therefore meta-
phorically referred to as “ a very close alliance ” with fire. In spite of
such a “close alliance,” water puts out fire. So alliance, however close,
with a natural enemy is dangerous.— The T reading can have sense only
by understanding atapiam punningly as “not injured^” “water, even tho
not heated (not injured), still puts out fire.” But the point of suMi^itenapi
samdhina, even (note the emphatic apt) with a very close alliance,” is
surely more in keeping with the other version. IS^othing is said in the
first half verse about not injuring an ally.
In WZKM, 25. 13 if. Hertel reconsiders this verse (replying to a sug-
gestion from Thomas, which I agree with Hertel in considering untenable).
He adds nothing of moment to his previous arguments. He seems to me
to miss the point of the verse altogetlier. It is not necessary to suppose
that a benefit is considered as being done to the water by being heated,
nor that the root tap is used of a friendly action. The point is simply
and solely that a man who tries to form a close alliance with his natural
enemy is likened to fire trying to ally itself with watei% The heating of
the water is metaphorically spoken of as an attempt to make water like
fire in its nature. The attempt must be unsuccessful*, water still puts out
fire. So, no matter how much a man may try (by a “ close alliance ”) to
assimilate his enemy to himself, the enemy will still injure him.
4. Hiiskt or unliiiskt sesame? Story II. 2.— This is the only other
case (V cf. however Ho. 5, below) advanst by Hertel in favor of his arche-
type “ K ” in his first statement of the case (Tantr. Einl. p, 28 ff.). We
are here confronted by a serious problem, no possible solution of whicli
is free from difficulties. For a complete discussion see AJIK 36. 266 ff.,
and my Critical Apparatus on Heconstruction II vs 27. Here I shall merely
state the general facts.
(a) The catch-verse (H vs 27) to the Sesame story, II. 2, seems to have
originally referred to the exchange of hmlt for husU sesame. This is, in
my opinion, not certain, but probable. So T reads, aiid also certain off-
shoots of Spl; the other Sanskrit versions are all non-committal and do
not mention either “ huskt for huskt ” or “ Imskt for unhuskt.” Only Pa
has huskt for unhnskt ” According to Hertel, the verse read “ luiskt for
huskt” not only in the Ur-Paflcatantra, but also in bis “K,” which thus
is not claimed to have been corrupt at this point. The verse, therefore,
does not concern us directly.
(b) In the prose story, after the huskt sesame has been defiled, the
house- wife sends a boy (or, in some versions, goes herself) to exchange
tliem. For what? According to § 132, probably for “black sesame”
{Ir^^tildih, T); her allegation was to bo that she had changed her mind
and wanted to make something of “ black sesame,” instead of the “ white
sesame ” which she had. In T— but only in T, so that there is no good
reason for supposing it to be original— the boy addp (after our II § 133)
the injunction that the “black sesame” must also be huskt, since the
white sesame which is offered in exchange is huskt. (Note that the mm an
is nut said to have given such instructions in T.) Now, in SP’s version
Arclielyjje “ K Huskt or unhuskt sesamo? . 107
of § 132, we find the phrase glin^atilais Ulan parigrhUna, corresponding
to T’s imaiis Ulan {lurieitdn api) kf^iatilaih paravartayiim. The verbal
correspondence is sufficiently close to suggest that there has been a
phonetic confusion between and ghr^a^. SP’s text means “ getting
in exchange sesame for [this] husJct sesame," Still there is nothing to indi-
cate whether the sesame to be received in exchange was to be husht or
unhuskt. (The SPa mss. have a different reading, which is clearly secondary,
since more remote from the original, here represented by T.)
(c) But once the word ghf^atila was introduced, displacing the pre-
sumably original lcTpia°^ the motive to be alleged for the' exchange (black
for white) was lost. Since ghf^ means ‘^rubbed” or the like, and so
‘‘huskV' it was a natural further change to make the woman offer this
huskt sesame in exchange for unhuskt, hoping thus by offering a bargain
to get an exchange. This is what SP does; in § 134 we find it reading
aghf^atilair ghp^ta gfhyante^ It is worthy of note— and seems to have
escaped Hertel’s attention — that T reads in our § 134, in place of the
phrase just quoted from SP, samdrghas tild mayd labdhdh, sukldh
Not hmcifil luncitdihl Even in T’s version the main point is, not “huskt
for huskt,” but “white for black,”— in so far as it has any sort of corre-
spondents in the other versions. Only in the evident insertion mentioned
in my Grit. App. on § 133 is emphasis laid on the “ huskt for huskt "
idea; and this is hardly consistent with T itself in § 134, where the main
point is “ white for black.”
(d) In short, nowhere in the original prose— as indicated by the sub-
stantial agreements of T and SP (allowing for tbe latter’s phonetic cor-
ruption)— is there any mention of either “hnskt for huskt” or “huskt
for unhuskt.” This is the case also with So and Ks, which as usual are
very much abbreviated (So even more than usual, so much so that Hertol
assumes a lacuna in its archetype; but this is very unlikely, I think; see
p. 117 below). The Jain versions are, as often, quite independent; and in
them we find the trade spoken of clearly as “huskt for unhuskt.” The
exchange of different colors is wholly eliminated. So also Pa. But both
Jn and Pa differ so radically from T and SP at this point that we cannot
use them for the reconstruction. All that is clear is that they have wholly
changed their originals. See footnote 3, page 108, for a possdble explanation
of their alteration.
(e) The ambiguity of the original prose, as regai’ds the point whether
the sesame was to be huskt or not, made it very easy for later versions
to forget, or alter, the catch-verse, and represent the woman as offering
huskt sesame for unhuskt This is exactly analogous to the motif of
“ new lamps for old,” familiar to us all from the famous story of Aladdin
in the Arabian Nights. Obviously, to an oriental mind at least, this must
be a natural motif. We cannot, therefore, agree with Hertel when he
scornfully rejects it as inconceivably stupid.
(f) I hold, therefore, tliat the story originally dealt with an- exchange
of “ huskt for huskt ” sesame, but that this was clearly stated only in
the catch-verse, whereas the prose story spoke only of offering white
108 Chapter Y: Critique of HertePs views of interrelationship of versions
for black sesame.^ The Ur-SP, Ur-Spl, and the archetype of Pa, by in-
dependent and verbally quite different variations, changed the story (in
8P probably owing to a merely phonetic corruption) to make it fall in
with the familiar motif illustrated by the “ new lamps for old ” of Aladdin.
(g) At the same time I should be willing to grant that this is the
kind of agi'eement between SP, Spl, and Pa, which would, if found in
sufficient numbers, tend to justify HerteFs assumption of their secondary
connexion. It is, however, the only one of this kind, with the possible
exception of No. 9 below, so far presented byHertel; all his other cases
are illusory. And it would require not one, but dozens, of such cases to
prove the point It is easy to find just as strong evidence as this which,
if considered alone, could be made to prove interrelation between ab-
solutely any two Paficatantra versions. Because of the lack of other
supporting evidence of the same sort, it seems clear to me that we are
dealing in this case with a mere chance coincidence between several
independent versions, of the sort which we find in abundance thruout
tlie Paficatantra. Hertel surely has no right to object to tliis hypothesis,
since he repeatedly assumes that agreements between several versions,
even when they correctly represent the original Pancatanira^ are due to
‘‘gliickliche Besserungen” and are therefore purely fortuitous.
5. Other evidence for in Hertel, Tautr, Einl. p. 3l?~-From
HerteFs language on p, 31 of the introduction to his translation of Tantra-
khyayika, it is perhaps to be inferred (tlio the language is not clear to
me) that he regards the verses treated in the places there mentioned (in
the introduction to his edition of SP) as evidence for this ^‘K.” These
passages are the following.
T vs 1. 125; Reconstruction I vs 124. The catch-verse of the story of
Btrandbirds and Sea, I. 9. The so-called * ** K ” versions go back to an
original which means: who without knowing the proioess of the enemy
picks a quarrel, comes to grief as the sea did from the strandhird.” T
alone reads dhrandain for mkramam (or the like), making it mean, accord-
ing to Hertel: who without knowing the [but see below 1] of the
enemy ” &c. The story is told by Damanaka to Baihjivaka by way of
waiming against undertaking to fight the lion. The word “ cry ” in such
a connexion seems a palpable absurdity to me. Hertel tries to justify it
—and even to insist that it is the only possible meaning for the original
—by arguing that the strandbird, in the story, “ cries ” to Graru(}a, thru
whose intervention Vi§nu helps him out. This seems weak enuf at best:
* It is possible that this was understood by later redactors as “ huskt for
unhuskt’^, that is, that the sesame was black with the husks on, hut that
the huskt kernels were white. Prom information at my disposal it appears
that there are various kinds of sesame, of different colors, some black on
the outside and white inside, but some either white or black both outside
and inside. The later versions which speak of “huskt for uuhuskt” may
have understood “white for black” in that sense; and this may be re-
sponsible for their change.
Archetype “K”; T I. 19, ReconKtruction I 21 109
it was not the “cry” of the bird that injured the sea; but in any case
it seems to me to have no bearing on the question. The verse must have
a general application, besides its application to the story of the Strand-
birds and Sea; and in particular it must be capable of application to the
situation between the lion and the bull. To suggest that the bull did not
know tlie lion’s “cry,” or particularly his “cry for help” (!), is ridiculous.
And in fact that is not what Tantrakhyayika means. The word alcranda
means not “ cry ” but “ ally,” a person upon whom one can call for help,
especially against an unexpected attack in the rear. (See the Kautiliya
Arthasastra, Bk. 6, Cli. 2 and Bk. 7, Ch. 4; 1st ed., pages 258 and 271.)
The Tantrakhyayika is not so stupid as Hertel would make it It refers
to the powerful allies and protectors of the strandbird. But this fits the
situation between the lion and the bull very poorly; the lion has no allies
and needs none, against the bull. It is his “prowess” which the bull has
to fear.
T vs I. 155; Reconstruction I vs 146.— Here we find Tp agreeing with
SP and Pn against (what seems to me evidently) a lectio facilior of Ta
and N. Hertel, of coutse, thinks N a “ gliickliche Besserung.” See my
Crit. App. ad loc.\ there 1 point out that N makes absolute nonsense with
its reading, so that in N, at least, the reading {mmnkasya) which Hertel
thinks is the only right one can only be a blundering lectio facilior. This
seems to me reasonable support for my opinion that the reading of all
other versions—SP, Pn, and even Tp— is the right one, and that Ta, like N,
has a mere blunder.
Hertel also refers 1. c, to p, LTX of the introduction to his edition
of SP. I find at that place an attempt on his part to prove that SP
and H go back to a coiTupt Sarada archetype; but as Hertel does not
even try to show that the supposed corruption coneei-ns any texts excei)t
SP and PI (both descendants of his “ n— w,” or what I call the Ur-SP),
it is clear that they show nothing whatsoever about “ K-” I therefore do
not understand HertePs reference to this place in connexion with “ K ”
and can only attribute it to carelessness on his part.
This is the extent of the “ evidence ” advanst by Hertel for liis “ arche-
type K ” in his Tantrakhyayika translation. Since that time, however,
he has brought forward certain other passages which he thinks confirm
his opinion. It is necessary now to consider them,
6. The verse T I. 19; Reconstruction I vs 21.— This is treated by
Hertel WZKM. 25. 9 fip. It is found in T, SP, N, Spl, Pn, and Pa. My
reconstruction reads:
kopaprasidavasttini vicinvantab samipagab
arohanti sanair bhrtya dhunvantam api parthivam.
Thus, with minor variants (see my Crit. App.), all vei'sions except 1,
which reads dhii/rtarh tarn for dhunvantam. SP ed, reads pdrthimdmmam
(SPa as text) for api parthivam; and this gives the key to the inter-
pretation. Ministers can gradually manage to “climb” a king (as a tree),
“ even tho he shakes fsways in the wind).” Hertel, however, maintains
1 10 Chapter V : Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions
that the T reading is the original, meaning even tho he (the king) is
sly.” Pie also argues that the comparison is not with a tree, hut with a
mountain, because later on (I § 49) there occurs a speech in which, in
the T vei'sion, kings are declared to be durarohcih as mountains, and
Plertel sees in this an allusion, and an answer, to drohanti of pacla c of
this verse.
In the first place, it seems rather questionable to take dhuria in the
sense of “sly, cunning.” It usually means “rogue, cheat, scoundrel,” which
would not fit here.
More important is the objection that § 49 can hardly be interpreted
as a reply to this vs. There intervene two prose sections and several
verses dealing with wholly different subjects. The verse we are consider-
ing is spoken by Damanaka; Karataka’s immediate response is simply
an inquiry as to what D. plans to say to the lion. If § 49 were Karafaka’s
response to this stanza, it would be put next to it, or certainly would
not be separated from it by so much unconnected matter. Moreover in
§49 only T reads durarohdly^ SP and both Jain versions read instead
duj'drddhydh (So durdsadali), and this, in my opinion, proves that dura-
rddhyaJi, not durdroMh, was the original Paficatantra reading in § 49.
Therewith falls the verbal assonance with drohanti^ and the last prop
for Hertel’s theory.
Hertel mentions the fact that the SPa mss. read dhunvantam for dhun%
and claims that this “ false reading ” contains in its long u a relic of the
original dhuHaml The w is of course not at all “false*,” from the earliest
times to the latest the forms dJiunoti &c. occur by the side of dliunoii
The interchange dhunvantam: dhurtarh tarn is, as Hertel notes, one
which seems to be due to a confusion in the Bai-adS alphabet. This, pace
Hertel, would suggest natui^ally that the change probably took place in
the only Pafic, recension which is known ever to have been written in
^arada, namely, Tantrakhyayika. That is, T has changed dhunmntam—
on every account to be regarded as the original reading— -to dhurtaifi tarn
by a corruption which is very easy and natural in farads.
7. The verse T II. 61; Rceonstruetion II vs 35.~In WZKM. 25. 23
Hei*tel refers to this as another instance of an inferior reading in “K.”
The verse is found only in SP, N, H, and Pij, besides T, so that it could
prove nothing for an antecedent of Pa, Bi-, and SpL— The variation
referred to by Hertel is found in the fourth pEda of the verse, which
reads in T«:
^ete hakara iva sarfakucitSkhilafigab,
while all other versions, including Tp (which Hertel thinks borrowed the
vs from “K”) read, with slight variations (see Grit. App.)t
canyab k§ai;^ena bhavatity aticitram etat.
Tlie thing which to my mind proves, contrary to Hertel’s view, that T«
is secondary, is this. The T« mss. add the supposed “K” reading of the
pnda (with omission of the first word), in their text, immediately after
the following prose sentence! In other words, the « mss. have a doublet
Archetype End of Book IV
111
of tlie pada. Evidently the progenitor of the a mss. added one or the
other reading in the margin, whence it was later copied into the text,
without deletion of the alternative reading. The only question is, which
version was the original, and which the gloss? Were the matter not dis-
torted in Hertel’s mind by his mistaken opinion about the relationship
of the versions, I feel sure that he would agree that the probabilities
favor the version which is found in loth* groups of T mss. And this pro-
bability is raised to a practical certainty by the fact that all the other
Paficatantra versions agree in having the reading which alone is found
in Tp, and which is also found, tho misplaced, in Ta.— Both readings in
this case make good sense; tliere is nothing to choose between them.
That u^man in pada c is imdei’stood by the T« version in the double
sense of “breath,” referring to the letter 7i, may well be. But that does
not prove that it was so understood originally. On the contrary, this may
suggest the origin of Ta’s variant. The redactor who composed or inserted
the variant saw a good chance to make a pun, and, Hindu-like, could
not resist it.
8. End of Book IT.— In Pane. p. 443 Hertel refers also to WZKM, 25.
36 f. for an additional proof of “ K.” I am unable to find anything there
which could possibly he considered as even a semblance of such proof.
Does Hertel refer to the end of Book IV, which he there discusses? If
so, he must allude to the fact that the Palilavi versions have obvious
correspondences to certain parts of Tp which are omitted in T« at the
end of Book IV. Hertel asserts that these passages are secondary additions
of “ K,” taken over thence into Tp, and that the original Book IV ended
as Ta does. He does not even make an attempt to prove this statement;
so I hardly know how to answer him. There is certainly nothing in-
herently objectionable in the passages in question— no a priori reason
for supposing them to be secondary. If there were, we may he sure that
Hertel would not have failed to point it out. On the contrary, Ta’s ending
is so abrupt that it seems to me to indicate a probable loss of something.
No other tantra ends with a verse spoken by one character in the story
to another, as does Ta here. To me it seems clear that TS and Pa pre-
serve parts of the original here, which Ta has lost. By the way, since
these parts are found only in TP and Pa, they would prove nothing for
“ K,” archetype of all the versions. Let Hertel not reply that the
omission of these parts in the Ur-SP, the Jain versions, and the Bp versions
is ail indication that they were not original! For according to his own
theory, since they belonged to “ K,” they were found in the archetype
of those versions, and should be found in them just as much as if they
belonged to tlie original Paheatantra, as I believe they did. The fact is,
of course, that the Ur-SP and By versions are shortened as usual, and
hence omit these passages (principally verses); wliile the Jain versions
have lost them in their radical reconstruction of Book IV, especially the
last part of it, which bears no resemblance to tbe original.
0* The verse SP III. 32; Reconstruction III vs 44; and preceding
prose.— This is the last of the (?,ases which, so far as I have been able
112 Chapter V: Critique of HertePs views of interrelationship of versions
to discover in a careful study of HerteFs writings, he advances as pr6of
of his K.” (His latest discussion of it is found in ZDMG. 69. 289 ff.) It
is also one of the most complicated of all the cases, and needs very
careful discussion. I shall first state the facts and probabilities of the case
as they appear to me, upon earnest consideration of all the evidence and
of HerteFs arguments. After this I shall speak of HerteFs divergent views.
The passage occurs in the story of the Elephant, Hares, and Moon
(HI, 3), at the point where the clever hare first addresses the elephant-
king. Being invited to state his business the hare begins thus, according
to my reconstruction (III §64, middle, and vs 44):
mmlca aha: janaty eva hJiavan, yathaHJiavadino diitasya na do^sali Immri,-
iyali. {dutamukhd hi rajanah sarva eva. ifktarfi cai)
uddhTt&^Y api sastre^u duto vadati ndnyaihd
te vui yatho&iavaktaro na vadhyah 44.
‘‘You know already. Sir, that a messenger speaking according to his in-
structions must not be blamed. (For kings, all of them, use messengers
as their mouthpieces. And it is said:)
Even when weapons are raised [to fight], a messenger speaks not other-
wise [than as instructed]. Since they speak according to instructions, of
course they must not be slain by a king.”
As usual in my reconstruction, italics indicate what is not verbally
certain in the original; parentheses enclose what may not have been in
the original at all, even in general sense.
Of the prose which I quoted before the verse, no Sanskrit version
except T and Pn has a trace (beyond the words samka aha or equivalent).
The words jdndty . . . hara^iyah are supported by T (both subrecensions)
and, it seems to me, by Pa, The words dutamukhd . . . uktarh ca are found
only in Pi;i, and are therefore enclosed in parentheses; there is reason
to believe, however, that T^ at least originally had something of the sort,
tho it is hopelessly corrupt in our mss.; and Pa may have had an equi-
valent The vs is found, as a verse, in SP, H, and Pn; correspondents
also in Pa; and Tp has a corrupt equivalent in prose, on which see
below. The variants are as follows.
jdndty . . . karat^iyaly, no variant in T or Pp, Sy has no equivalent,
but all offshoots of the Arabic agree in having wdiat seems to he a clear
correspondent. E. g. KP p, 136, 1. 17: “and be not offended at the words
of messengers (JCap et nulla est culpa nuncii), because a messenger is
not to be blamed for what he is ordered to say, for as he hears so does
he repeat the message,” See,
dutamukhd , . . uktark ca, only Pi;i, except that Tp has, corruptly, uktaTh
ca [first!], dutd hy (mss. corruptly dUtady or dyUtd hy); then follows the
equivalent of the verse, uddhfte^v ^c. This phrase may be represented in
the Pahlavi versions, which as often mingle the next vs with the pre-
ceding prose; cf, the passage just quoted from KF.
Vs 44: in T(3 prose, see below; not in Ta. a, SP, H udyate^v (T with
text. BOO below), h (no equivalent in T), Pn handhuvargavadhe^r api\ SI*,
Arclietyi.e K SP HI. B2, Recotistruction III vs 44 1 1 B
H text, c (cf. T below), Pn parmdny api jalpanto, SP ed. te yafhdrtha-
pravalctdrali (SPa ie vdi yathdrthamlctdo'o), I-I Pet. ie yatharthasya valctaro,
H Mti. saddmlvadhyahhavena. d, Pn mdhyd dutd na hliubliujd, SP prtM-
vyrnih prthivihJiujam (SPa as text), H Pet. 'py avadhjd hi hhavadrmm, PI
Mti. yathdrthasya {cf. e!) hi mcalcah.‘—T^ for vs: uddhrte^v api Sdstre^u (so
mss.) yathohtavalctdrah te§dm antevdsino ^py avadhyd iti.—Bj: daJ3 ein Bot-
schafter, aucli wenn er in einer scblimmen Sacbe kommt [= pada a],
weder getdtet nocb gefangen genommen werden darf. Ar, cf. Joel p. 77,
1. 26: quand mtoe il promonce des paroles m4cliantes (so also other Ar
versions, instead of “wenn er in einer scblimmen Sacbe kommt”), il n’est
que le messager qui ne pent pas commettre un pdcber, piiisqu’il doit
s’acqnitter de ce qu’on Ini a ordonnd de dire.
Now, I should be tbe last to claim that tbe original form of this
passage, and particularly the verse, is clear in all details. But (unhappily!)
it is not unique in this respect. The variations between the several versions,
while more markt than usual, are by no means unparalleled. There are
other passages— other verses even— which vary as widely in tlie several
versions, and yet which no one would suspect of being unoriginal as a
'whole— tho there may be serious question as to some of the details of
the original, as there are in this case.
Probably Hertel would have been slow to make this claim on such a
basis alone. Of course the fact that the verse is lacking in T« prejudices
him, because of his views of the exclusive position of that subrecension,
against its originality. But he has made an interesting discovery abqut
the Tj3 reading, which he considers a striking confirmation of his view.
He notes that there is apparently some relation between the Tp reading
and a passage from the Kaiitiliya Arthas^tra, p. 30 towards bottom,
where a messenger is instructed to say, if tlie king to whom ho is sent
gets angry:
dtttamukha vai rajanas tvaih canye ca. tasmad uddhrte^v api sastresu
yathoktarh vaktaras te^am autavasayino 'py avadhyab; kim aRga brah-
mapah. parasyaitad vRkyam, ddtadbarma iti.
The similarity of the Tp reading to this indicates that it is a garbled quo-
tation of the Kiu^. This seems, confirmed especially by the word cmtendsino^
which occurs only in Tp, and whose sense would hardly be guest from
its context. The passage seems to show that it means “ Can^Rlas.”
liertel’s theory is that “ K ” interpolated, probably as a marginal note,
an abbreviated refei’ence to this KSu^ passage. He thinks this marginal
note began dUtddy uddhfte^v api etc., and that dWdy means and
is an abbreviation for the words dUtamiddhd to tasntdd inch, after which
the note proceeded to give (in fragmentary form) the rest of the quota-
tion. This garbled quotation of K, he thinks, was taken over bodily in
Tp, whereas Pp and Ur-SP, or their respective archetypes, tried to emend
it and make sense out of it, both of them making part of it into a verse,
but independently of each other,
I submit the following as a theory which seems at least m likely
to be the true explanation of the facts. Tlie original FaiCatantra read
Edgerton, Faficatantra II, g
1 14 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions
as my reconstruction reads (with the possible exceptions indicated by the
use of parentheses and italics therein). The redactor of T, being reminded
of the Kaut. passage by the language of the passage he found in his
original, substituted the one for the other, perhaps conceiving that his
original made an attempt to quote the Kauf. and had become corrupt
But the T reading itself became corrupt in tradition (as it is in the mss.),
and for this reason, since it makes no sense as it stands, the Ta copyist
omitted it. There is, in my opinion, plenty of evidence that the copyist
of the Ta archetype did this freely with other passages which he found
in a corrupt form in his predecessor (see below, p. 122 f.).
Hertel says that the introductory uMam ea (Tp, Pii) specifically indi-
cates that the following passage is a quotation. I reply: uktarii ea ge-
nerally indicates nothing but that a verse follows. The verse may or may
not be quoted from another source; at any rate most of the verses, which
ai'e so constantly introduced by this same plirase, belonged to the original
Paficatantra, even tho they need not necessarily be supposed to have been
composed by its author. The phrase ulctaifi ca therefore does not necessarily
imply that the following was a quotation from an outside source— still
less that it was not in the Ur-Paflc.
Hertel thinks the form of the verse, as the alleged “K” texts have
it, is poor, and finds in this a confirmation of his theory that it is un-
original. Aside from the fact that there are (as Hertel himself has pointed
out) laxities and imperfections in other verses, indubitably parts of the
original, I cannot agree with Hertel as to the supposedly poor quality
of this verse. He quotes the reading of SPa in padas cd as ^raktaro
amdhyiili% with hiatus between the padas. But only one ms. has this
i*eading) according to Ms statement! Tlie others read na vadhydly^ and
none of the other ‘‘K” texts show the hiatus. Evidently Hertel would
not regard the reading mth the hiatus as the original one, were he not
over-anxious to make the ‘‘ K ” version seem poor. — His other criticism
of the verse is directed at the fact that in pada b we have the singular
duto^ while in cd the plural te.,, na vadhyaJi is foixnd. I see nothing
difficult in this. Tlie word duto is a generalizing singular: ‘‘a [=any
aiid every] messenger speaks as instructed.’* That this is then resumed
by a plural, “ they ” = “ messengers ” in general, is surely a simple emif
change of construction and hardly seems to me to call for comment. I
think no one would find fault with this if he were not looking for trouble.
As a positive objection to Hertel’s theory I would advance this. I know
of no case in all Sanskrit literature in which a “ quotation ” is made in
such a strange way as Hertel assumes for his “K.” In the first place,
cun ddi be used alone for iti (or ityddt) in this sense? I do not know an
instance. In the second place, when the first word or pratika of a passage,
followed by Ui (rather than &di)^ is used by way of quotation, the text
does not then follow it up with a group of words taken out of the middle
of the quoted passage! In other words, a Hindu intending to quote
diltamukliu vsli riijanns tvaiii canye ca. tasmad uddhytesv n])i sfistresn
Arcliotviie SP III. 32, Kocoxistruction III vs 44
115
might possibly liave (pioted it by dutadi (rather, dutetit) alone; but he
would surely not then have added uddhrtesv api etc.! In fact, since dutddy
(or dTdety) would have been insufficient to identify the })assage, he ’would
have quoted more from the ’beginning of the passage, as e. g. duta-
mulchd rdi rdjdm ity (adi) or the like. This seems to me to indicate that
Her tel is wrong in accepting the reading of the T ms. z {dutddy) at this
place, and that the other ms. R, which reads dyutd liy, has the correct
reading except that of course dutd should be read for dyUid. (On the ms. R
see below, p. 124 ff.) This seems to me to get further confirmation from
Purnabhadra’s reading, dUtamulcJid hi Sec. If we assume that Pp represents
the original Paiicatantra in this, the resemblance to the Kaut. passage
becomes still more striking, and it becomes even easier to understand how
the T redactor substituted a quotation of that passage for the following
verse. Pn surely cannot have got his reading from any such text as the
T^ mss. present, by a ‘‘ gliickliche Besserung ”, as Hertel assumes. That is
really too much to attribute to a Hindu redactor, or any other human
being! It would be literally a miracle fora later redactor, starting with
such an abbreviation or garbling of a quotation as is found in Tp, to
restore it and come so close to the origiuaL
It might be urged that the general language of the SP-Pn verse, and
especially of the preceding prose in Pn, is so close to the Kauf. passage
as to indicate that somehow or other it must go back to an original
quotation of that passage. But note that even in Ta— and therefore in
the original Pafic. according to Hertel— occur the 'wovds: jdmty eva hhavdn
yatharthavddino dutasya na dosali Icarayiiyali. These w^ords are also close
to the words of the Kaut. passage; but hardly close enuf to indicate a
direct quotation from it. Hertel himself docs not assume that it is that.
As a matter of fact the principle laid down in the passage is, as Hertel
rightly says, a commonplace of niizditerature. And the only version w'hose
words are so close to Kauf, as to make it seem clearly an attempt at a
quotation is (again I agree with Hertel) Tp. I disagree with Hertel only
in that I regard this quotation of Tp as a secondary substitute for the
original Pafic. reading, and further in that I regard Ta’s omission of the
passage as proving nothing but the fact that its archetype (namely, a
version agreeing here with Tp) was corrupt at the point.
It seems to me unlikely that SP and Pn, or their archetypes, could
have composed the verse in question independently, as Hertel assumes.
It is true that their readings differ widely. But there are also contained
in them striking verbal correspondences, not all of which can be explained
as coming from the original form of the quotation (note the ending of
the last pada, pftAwbhujS: 5AflbhujS). As I have said, verses whose
originality is unquestioned and unquestionable differ at times just as
widely as does this verse in the readings of various recensions.
Hertel, adopting a suggestion made to him by Jolly, would see in the
Arabic versions of the stanza, which read e. g. Joel quand memo il pro-
nonce des paroles mdehantes, an equivalent of Pn’s pida c,
api jalpanto. It seems to me much more likely that the Arabic has here
Il6 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of iutorrelationsliip of versions
misunderstood or distorted the Pahlavi which is represented in the Old
Syriac by “ aueh wenn er in einer sehlimmen Sache kouimt This phrase
seems to mC to represent pada a of the original uddhfte^v api nastre^u.
It is a “schlimme Sache” when hostilities have opened. Of course the
rendering is not exact, even in the Syriac ; but all students of the Syriac
will, I am sure, agree that it is no more remote from the original than
the Pahlavi versions frequently — indeed, constantly — are.
To sum up ; it seems to me that my theory of this passage is at least
as likely an explanation of the facts as Hertel’s, considering the passage
by itself. Now, if Hertel were right in supposing that he has absolutely
X^roved his tlieory as to the general relationship of the versions, tlien
it would be fair and proper to give weight to that theory in evaluating
the evidence on this passage too. I hope I have shown by this time liow
far he has come from proving this. While, therefore, I do not say, in
Hertel’s style, that my explanation is the only conceivable one for this
admittedly troublesome and difficult passage, I think I have made it clear
that Hertel’s contrary explanation is certainly not the only conceivable one.
Summary aud conclusion as to the “ archetype K.” — The number
of cases which Hertel advances in proof of his “ K ” is some^
what larger than the number which he finds for t,” or for
his “ N-W ’’ (see the following pages). It is still far from large
enuf to prove the pointy even if the cases were individually
sound (c/. p. 91 f. above). As a matter of fact not a single
one of them is compelling. Only in two instances (Nos. 4 and 9)
does he make out what could be called even a plausible prima
facie caae. And in both of those cases I have suggested other
alternatives which are certainly possible, and which to me seem
at least as likely to be right a priori as Hertel’s views ; while
a consideration of the versions as a whole leads me to believe
that they are far more likely to be right. In all the remaining
instances, Hertel does not even make out a plausible case. In
every one of them the reading of the ‘‘K” versions has been
shown to be at least as good as the T reading, and therefore,
since the T reading is found only in one version, more likely
to he original. In some instances the Tp mss. agree with the
supposed K ’’ versions, thus making assurance doubly sure,
as it seems to me. In one case (No. 1), of which Hertel makes
much, the T version has been shown on internal evidence to
be secondary and corrupt; it is not even consistent with itself,
and it has borrowed from another place in its own text a
sentence on which HertePs argument is largely based. — In
Cliapter VIT, below, I shall present a large collection of cases
The supposed archetype “ N-W
117
in wliicli 1 believe that T is secondary, as shown by ag'reexnents
of other versions. This collection may be understood as an
additional argument, on the positive side, against Herters hypo-
thesis of “ K,” which implies an exceptional and well-nigh ex-
clusive position for T among Pancatantra versions.
III. The supposed archetype N -W
What is meant by the supposed archetype “N-W”? — Accord-
ing to Hertel, this “N-W” was an offshoot of ‘‘K” (see the
preceding pages), from which Pa, the Ur-SP (with N and H),
and Spl (with Pn) are descended. In other words, it is an arche-
type of all the “ K ” versions except the Bphatkatha versions,
So and Ks, which are independent of it. This “N-W” rests
on even weaker grounds than t ” and “ K,” if that be possible.
That is, there is even less alleged evidence for it. So far as
I can see, Hertel makes this assumption on the basis of pre-
cisely two passages (!), in which he finds common secondary
features in these versions.
1. The Sesame st6ry again. — One concerns the Sesame story (II. 2),
mentioned above, page 106 ff. It was noted there that Somadeva is extreme-
ly brief in his account of the last part of the story, practically omitting
the account of the attempted barter. Now Hertel’s theory, more ingenious
than probable, is that Somadeva’s archetype had a lacuna at this place.
(He does not say how he interprets Ksemendra, which summarizes, no
more briefly than usual, the part supposed to. have been omitted in
Somadeva’s archetype'— which was presumably K^emendra’s archetype
too.) This lacuna Hertel supposes to have occurred in “ K.” It was filled
in, secondarily, and incorrectly (with ‘‘huskt for unhuskt” sesame, cf.
above), in an offshoot of “K,” called by' Hertel “N-Wp’ and from this
» N-W ” are descended Ihe Ur-SF, Pa, and Spl, while So (and K§?) come
* from the unrestored ‘‘K" with its lacuna.
I would observe, first, that Somadeva is almost or quite as brief in
many other places as he is at this place. I am sure that Hertel would
never have thot of assuming a lacuna here if it had not suited his special
purpose. Secondly, and much more important: SP shows, in the parts
of the story covered by the supposed “ lacuna,’’ markt verbal coiTespoi»-
dences with T. (For examples see page 107 above; for others, see my
Crit^App.) Now, aceoi'ding to Hertel, SP in this part goes hack to a
secondai’y restoration, made in N-W,” of this “ lacuna.” How then dees
the language of SP happen to indicate that it goes back, in spots at
least, to the same literal original as T? Even the proper name KlEmaiii-
daki occurs in SP in the place supposed to have been lost and restored.
118 Cliapter V: Critique of Herters views of interrelationship of versions
Unless we assume tliat the restorer copied from a version of the original
(in which case the result would be the same as if there had never been
a lacuna), I do not see how this would be possible.
My own views on the Sesame story are summarized above. Whether
they are right or wrong in general, in any case it seems to me that
Hertel’s ^‘lacuna*' and subsequent “restoration” are alike imaginary.
3. Story of Brahman and Bogaes, III. 5.— So far as I can discover,
this is fhe only other passage advanst by Hertel in support of his “ N-W
See his Tantr. Einl. p. 32f., and SP Einl. p. XXXVIfP. Here he assumes
a lacuna in the archetype of SP (N, H), Spl (Pn), and Pa, while T and
So go back to a comi)lete text.
It is necessary here to distinguish between what Hertel has sound
philological grounds for asserting, and ^what he merely conjectures on
purely subjective and imaginary grounds. Unfortunately he states both
with equal positiveness and assurance.
That the manuscripts of SP all go back to a manuscript which had
a lacuna in the middle of this story, can hardly be doubted if we assume
the correctness of Hertel’s quotations from them (SP p. XXXIX f.). The
lacuna is plainly there in many of them; in the others it is filled out
in various absurd ways, showing no relation whatever to the original.
So far, so good; BP clearly had a lacuna here.
But on what grounds does Hertel assume that this lacuna goes back
to an archetype of SP, N, H, Pa, and Spl? Solely on the ground of the
variation in the number of rogues undertaking to trick the brahman.
Xamely; in all the versions (except the fragmentary mss. of SP) the brali-
man is addrest by the rogues three times, one after another. But whereas
in H, Jn, and Pa (on Pa see below) only one of the rogues addresses
him at a time, in So and T we find him addrest the first time by one
rogue, the second time by two, and the third time by three, so that six
rogues appear in all. Kg agrees with T and So, except that the third time
it says “othei*s” (plural, not dual), instead of specifically “three*’.
I agree with Hertel that tlie striking accord in the numbers between
T and So and Kg is a strong indication that the original read as they
do. It is the sort of feature which could not well be supposed to have
been invented independently by several redactors. But when Hertel seeks
to bring the simplification in the numbers found in the other recensions
into relation with the lacuna in SP, it seems to me that he becomes
again wholly subjective and inconclusive, if not absurd. That Pa and Jn
aaid H have three indmdmJs instead of three groups (of one, two, and
three respectively— if I may be pardoned for speaking of a “ group ” of
one), as in T and So, is surely no matter for surprise. It ought not even
to call for comment. The brahman was addrest only three times; why—
say the Pa, Jn, and H redactors -should there be more than three
speakei's? I’he climactic arrangement of the numbers is exactly the sort
of trifling detail which we constantly find later redactors altering, either
carelessly, or deliberately (because there seemed to be no reason for it).
The only reason, indeed, which Hertel can think of for its being used
The nui»pos6d archetype “N-W’’
119
ill the original is that perhaps the author wanted to give examples of
parallel Sanskrit forms in the singular, dual, and plural! The details of
the entire passage in Spl and Pa (especially the Old Spanish, which is
here very close to the original) and Hitopadesa are given substantially
as fully and as well as in T; and— this is important— -in strikingly similar
language, for the most part. See my Grit. App., which shows unmistakable
evidence that these versions go hack to the same original,— even Spl, tho
it (as very often) has peculiar variations of its own. How do they happen
to tell the story in so nearly the same terms if there was a lacuna in
the archetype of all of them at this point? Contrast the handling of the
story in the mss. of SP, which have really filled in a genuine lacuna
(still present in many of them). They are utterly different from each
other and from the other versions,— It seems to me scarcely believable
that anyone could base such sweeping conclusions on this trifling point
of the variation in numbers.
Hertel (I, e.) makes much of the fact that there is some variation in
the number of rogues in some of the offshoots of the Pahlavi (in Old
Syriac four, in some offshoots of the Arabic only two). He actually
seems to argue from this that the number varied in the Pahlavi itself!
As if the Palilavi translator (for Hertel does not question that the Syriac
and Arabic, at least, go back to a single version, the Pahlavi) were
uncertain how many rogues to mention, and perhaps told the story
differently, using different numbers! Or did the Pahlavi have the alleged
“lacuna” still present in its actual text? If so, how comes it that the
Old Spanish (and other Pahlavi offshoots) have the clearest possible
evidence of literal translation from the Sanskrit in the passage? Where
was the lacuna— between what two points, exactly? — The variation in
mimhers in the Pahlavi is a support of my contention, not of Hertel’ s.
It shows how easy it was for later versions to vary independently on
such a trifling detail as this. Pahlavi certainly had some definite number
—whether four, three, or two (as a matter of fact, unquestionably three) ;
yet its descendants vary. Note also that the variation in the descendants
of the Pahlavi goes hand in hand with a variation in the number of times
the brahman is addrest. The rogues go singly; one rogue, one approach
to the brahman. In T and So, on the other hand, as in all other Sanskrit
versions (barring the corrupt SP), the brahman is addrest exactly three
times, neither more nor less.— That SP’s corruption originated later than
the Ur-SP is proved by the Hitopadesa, which not only has precisely
three successive approaches to the brahman, but also contains some clear
verbal inheritances from the original in the place where the SP mss.
have their lacuna.
Summary and concltLsion. — To sum up^ there is not a trace of
eyidence which makes in any degree likely HerteFs assump-
tion of the archetype ‘‘N-W.” He has produced only two
alleged pieces of evidence 5 and neither one has any weight
whatsoever.
1 20 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of iaterrelatioiishij) of versions
IV. Relations of Tantrakhyayika a and p, and of the
mss. of T.
Hertel’s view that Ta is more original than p. — According
to Hertel, the sabrecension Ta is ‘‘ far more original ” than
T|3 (Tantr. Einl. p. 69, and j^assim). Apparently to him the
conclusive, and almost the only, evidence of the general un-
originality of Tp consists in the alleged fact to which allusion
has been made repeatedly, that T|3 contains many verses,
some prose sentences, at least one entire story, and not a few
variant readings of individual words, in common with the
versions, and at variance with Ta. In most such cases Hertel
believes that Ta is the original, and that TjS has inserted
(or substituted) readings taken from a K ” codex. Hertel
admits, however, that when the two subrecensions vary, it is
not always TP which is inferior. Not infrequently he find^ it
necessary to adopt the TP reading rather than the Ta one
in his text. And he recognizes the interpolation of one story,
the Treacherous Bawd, in Ta (as III. 5). In short, his view
may he summarized thus. Each of the two subrecensions contains
some correct readings and some secondary readings whicli the
other has not; but the former are far more common in Ta,
the latter in T p. Each also contains secondary interpolations
which the other has not, but TP has far more thau Ta. And
when we find a passage in TP that is lacking in Ta, the
presumption always is that it is an interpolation in tlie former,
not an omission in the latter. This presumption is in no way
weakened if we find the interpolation ” present in other
Pancatantra versions ; for this simply means that T p inter-
polated the passage from a codex.
The present writer’s views. — My own view of this subject
is almost the reverse of Hertel’s. I find no evidence that in
the slightest degree tends to show contamination from an out-
side Pancatantra version in TP ; and it seems to me that such
contamination is extremely unlikely. In every single case in
which TP agrees with the consensus of the so-called K ”
versions, I believe that this agreement is inherited from the
original Pancatantra, and that it is Ta which is secondary.
There is not one such case in which the Tp and so-called
K ” reading is in any ^vay inferior to the reading of T a ;
Allowed iiiterimlatidiis in Tf: f'nmi “ K
121
and there arc not a few cases in which it seems to me that
it is superior. (Of course, in many cases either reading makes
good sense.) All the supposed “ interpolations ” of Tg, when
supported by the other versions, belong to the original, and
have been omitted in Ta. As to minor variants, variae lectiones
of individual words, my disagreement with Hertel is not so
important. Here again, when a reading of either subrecension
is supported by the consensus of outside versions, I believe
that it is always original. It is not by any means always, tho
it is more often, Tp which is thus supported. Each of the
subrecensions preserves at different times better readings than
the other. As a matter of fact the two agree pretty closely
on verbal details. Generally speaking the variations are not
markt, aside from obvious manuscript blunders. — Of Hertel’s
ideas as to the relation of the individual manuscripts of T,
and his editing of the text, I shall speak later.
Alleged interpolations in Tp from a codex.— I have
already indicated that I consider Hertel’s “ K ” imaginary, and
have stated my reasons for not accepting his interpretation
of various passages in which he thinks the other versions are
inferior to Ta. As to the passages which Hertel thinks are
interpolations from “ K ” in ; the single story which lie
calls a “ certain interpolation from a K-codex ” (Tantr. Einl.
p. 67), namely the Old Man, Young Wife, and Thief (III. 6
of the reconstruction), has been considered by me on page 63,
note 6. I have there shown the fallacious nature of Hertel’s
objections to it. I think there is no doubt that it belonged to
the original Pancatantra. There are in T|S (and partly in Ta
too) a number of stories which I agree with Hertel in denying
to the original Pancatantra (p. 74 ff.) ; but there is no reason
to suppose that they were borrowed from any other Panca-
tantra version, and I understand that Hertel does not suppose
that. — As to the verses in T^ and other versions, but not in
Ta (a list, not quite complete I think, is given by Hertel,
Tantr. Einl. p, 67 f.), it is scarcely possible to argue about
most of them. In tho nature of the case there can not, usually,
be any compelling ground for regarding them as either original
or unoriginal (unless one accepts as proof of their originality
the agreement of tho other versions with T^, which in my
122 Chapter V: Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions
opinion is a sufficient "proof , but not in Hertel’s opinion). For
it is easy both to insert and to omit these proverbial stanzas,
without otherwise disturbing the text. Consequently it is hard
to detect definite signs of either their insertion or their omission.
— The same is partly true of the various prose passages found
in Tp (and other versions), but not in Ta. Sometimes Hertel
thinks he can see proof, in the context, of the unoriginality
of such passages. I have noted above several such cases and
indicated my reasons for not accepting his conclusions. Some-
times I think, on the other hand, that I can see reasons for
preferring the longer version, as in the case of the ending of
Book TV, where Ta breaks off abruptly with a verse spoken
by the ape to the crocodile^ with no proper conclusion such
as all the other tantras have, and such as T p has here. But
such preferences would usually be largely subjective; and I
should seldom be prepared to claim that they were absolutely
conclusive (e. g, as regards Book IV and its ending, I recognize
that conceivably the original author might have chosen to end
this single book in such an abrupt fashion, contrary to his
usual custom). I think, however, that it is perhaps worth noting
that in quite a number of cases where Ta fails to show corres-
pondents to a passage found in T^ (and other versions), we
find that the Tp tradition is corrupt, or at least unoriginal.
This seems to me significant. It suggests that the Ta subre-
cension may possibly go back to an archetype which contained
the passages in question, but in a distorted or corrupt form,
as they are found in Tp; and this may be just the reason
for the omissions. I have shown, for instance, that Ta’s omission
of the stories of the Old Man, Young Wife, and Thief, and
of the Talking Cava, may not improbably be connected with
such distortions in the text of 'tp where these stories are
introduced (see pages 65, n., and 77). Similar cases (for the
details see my Grit. App.) occur in II § 234 (lacuna indicated
by space in T P mss. ; nothing in T a), II § 236 (T P secondary
and apparently corrupt; nothing in T a), III § 25 (lacuna
indicated by space in T p mss. ; nothing in T a), III § 64
(corrupt in T p, nothing in T a, see above, p. 114), HI § 245
(see page 175 below; this § omitted in T a in an attempt to
rationalize a ])assage corrupted by the omission of tlie preceding
Minor variations in the language of Ta and f; 123
§ 244), III § 278 (name of frog-king, jalapada, corrupt in Tfi,
omitted in Ta and in one ms. ; Hertel, T ed. p. 139, 1. 12,
note, quite rightly: “Das Fehlen des Wortes in a dtirfte
seinen Grund in der in fz iiberlieferten Korruptel haben ”)*
In some stanzas^ also, which are found in other recensions, it
is probable that corruptions in T? are responsible for the
omission of the stanza in Ta. Thus III vss 16 and 17 are
])reserved only in fragmentary form (one half of each) in
tho the entire stanzas are found in Pahlavi; they are wholly
omitted in T a. I believe that III vs 44 is a similar case;
here T ^ appears to have substituted a prose quotation, in a
corrupt form, for the stanza; see p. Ill ff. Less certain leases
are III vss 41, 42, and 61, in which Tp has minor corruptions,
and which are omitted in Ta. — In the note just quoted from
Hertel, T ed. p. 139, on 1. 12, lie seems to recognize the possi-
bility that omissions in Ta may be due to corruptions in Ti3,
thus implying that Ta goes back to an archetype which con-
tained at least some of the corruptions now found in Tp. It
seems to me that he would have done well to allow greater
scope to this possibility.
Minor variations in the language of Ta and p. — These are
fairly numerous in the aggregate, tho comparatively of minor
importance. Most of them, I should say, are the sort of petty
variants which may and do occur independently in different
manuscripts. So it happens that we occasionally ^ind hoth read-
ings, of Ta and p, supported by different outside recensions or
subrecensions. (A few examples are listed by me.Ae/P. 36. 275 ff.)
In most of these cases it is out of the question to suppose direct
connexion in both cases; one or the other reading must have
been changed independently. On the other hand, when the out-
side versions unanimously agree with either Ta or TP against
the other, it seems to me fairly certain that the disagreeing
version is secondary. And indeed it seems to me that this is
usually the only criterion by which one can decide with assu-
rance whether Ta or TP is more original. By this criterion
sometimes the one, sometimes the other is supported. It seems
to me hardly possible to lay down a general law favoring either
one. Hertel also admits this in practice^ and not infrequently
adopts the p reading in his text. But, as I have said, I think
1 24 Chapter Yi Crititi[ue of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions
he exaggerates the value of a. In particular I think he is always
wrong when he prefers the reading of a to that of ^ supported
by the consensus of outside versions.
Supposed “ attempted corrections,” in Tp, of Ta readings. —
In a few cases Hertel (see especially ZDMO. 59. 5 ff., also
passim in his edition and translation) thinks he finds evidence
that TP has attempted to correct (usually without success) a
reading found in Ta. His arguments on these points seem to
me as subjective and illusory as those by which he seeks to
prove his “t,” “ K,” and “N-W.” In most of the cases I
find no reason for supposing that Ta is superior ; and in some
I find reasons for the contrary opinion. g. our II § 204
{ZDMG. 59. 6) ; the negative (na vartate) of p is supported by
SP and Pn; it is my opinion that the a mss. have omitted it
by mere error. The verb is put before the subject for emphasis,
and its position does not necessarily indicate a question. In
our III § 265 the name of the serpent, Maiidavi^a, is found
only in. the single ms. R of p. Hertel (Translation, p. 131, n. 1)
says “ durch Konjektur erglinzt”. The identical name is found
in the same place in the other recensions. Is it likely that the
scribe of the ms. R would invent by conjecture a name for
the serpent and hit on the form which the other versions have ?
In fact the name occurs below in the other p mss. and it seems
to me obvious that R has correctly preserved the original name
at the place wiiere it first occurs, whereas the other mss. have
omitted it by accident. — In our II § 169 Hertel (c/. his Trans-
lation, p. 82, n. 2) says that p’s reading {udyuktanam dhanam
hhogddi hoa yGLsyantUi) is “ evidently a mistaken correction ”
of the corrupt ” reading of a {udyu^ kua yanti dhanabhoga iti)^
which he emends to udyu° hy dyO^nti etc. Neithei: a nor p can
he called ^‘corrupt;” Hertel has simply failed to understand
them. They both mean Treasures and pleasures never leave
the strenuous; " literally, of the strenuous, where do [or, will]
treasures and pleasures go?” (rhetorical question, do [or, will]
not go anywhere). No emendation is called for. Either a or p
may he the original reading; one is simply a paraphrase of
the other, and the outside versions happen to give us no help
in deciding between tliem. Since p means exactly the same thing
as a, except that it has a future tense instead of a present,
The manuscripts of Tantrakhyayika
125
I fail to see how Hertel can call it a ‘‘correction” of a, in
any case.
The manuscripts of Tantrakhyayika. — In tlie last paragraph
I noted a passage in which I believe that the ms, R (of p) has
preserved the original reading, alone of all T mss. I think
that this is not an isolated instance. While I should not say
and do not believe that R is in all cases the best ms. of T,
I think it is much more important than Hertel assumes. Hertel
believes that it is derived (not immediately) from the ms.
and that when it has the correct reading against the other
mss., this is due to “ gliickliche Besserung ” (his favorite way
of explaining facts which spoil his theories). He admits that
these “ gliickliche Besserungen ” of R are not infrequent. {Cf.
T ed., p. XVII: “R sucht durchgehends den Text zu bessern
und hat ofters das Richtige getroffen.”) Indeed^ they are so
frequent that he assumes {1. c.) an imaginary manuscript
standing between z and R, and immediate source of the latter,
in which some errors were corrected, possibly icith the aid of
other manuscripts, [“ In ^ waren wohl einzelne Fehler (nach
anderen Hss,?) gebessert.”] Yet he apparently ignores this
suggestion of his own, that R gets at least some of its superior
readings from manuscripts lying outside of our materials. For
later {op, cit, p. XXIII) he flatly declares that “apparently or
really superior readings ” of R “ have only the value of con-
jectures.” And it is on this principle that he acts in constituting
his text; even when R has a reading supported by the consensus
of the other recensions (and often, it seems to me, by the sense),
he very rarely and grudgingly allows himself to be guided by
it. This is because he thinks he has proved (op, cit p, XYI)
that R is dependent on z paleographically. Even if he be right
in this as to certain places, that would not prove that R is
always dependent on z. Not infrequently a Hindu ms., for
one reason or another, is copied from different archetypes in
different parts of the text. This is the case with Herters ms. p,
which belongs to Toe in the first part but to T3 in the second
part, — the shift occurring, according to Hertel, right in the middle
of a sentence, and with no change in the writing or other indi-
cation of any sort. How then can Hertel be sure, even if R
is dependent on z in spots, tliat it is not "independent of it in
1'26 Chapter Vs Critique of Hertel’s views of interrelationship of versions
other spots ? Nay, he has himself suggested that it is so — that its
archetype (the imaginary Q “ corrected ” tlie text “ according to
other manuscripts ’’ (with a question-mark, to be sure). He should
therefore have given more weight to R’s readings, especially
when they are supported by other versions. I have little faith
in Hertel’s standing explanation of “ gliickliche Besserungen.’’
Of HertePs general discussion of tlie relations of his T mss.
to each other, I must say that wliile it sounds extremely im-
pressive at first, it fails to impress on closer acquaintance. Its
elaborate and artificial scheme, including half a dozen or more
imaginary manuscripts, is built up largely by a process wl}ich
can best he described as “hearing the grass grow.” It is, in
my opinion, impossible to set up such sweeping generalizations
on the basis of a few minute (and often very questionable)
data. For one thing, many of the “ common corruptions ” on
which HertePs scheme largely depends are not corruptions at
all, but good readings, which Hertel has merely failed to under-
stand. Ilertel is very much too free with emendations; see the list
of erroneous emendations in T’s text given below, Chapter IX.
j&l ^., in one paragraph (paragraph 15 on p. XXI of T ed.)
he groups some seven or eight “ corruptions,” of which thi'ee
— the only ones which are found in all the manuscrijpts — are ■
not corruptions at all; HertePs emendations are false. (These
are T p. 61, 1. 12, our I § 585, where Hertel wrongly inserts
ninda] p. 74, 1. 14, where he wrongly inserts iesam suguptam,
cf. JAOS^ 38. 278; p. 110, L 12, where he wrongly inserts a7m,
instead of reading with ahhinihita sandhi 'samo^,) This may
serve as an example of the insecure basis on which he builds
his elaborate but flimsy superstructure. Until more conclusive
evidence to the contrary is produced than has yet been offered
by Hertel, we may assume, I think, that the agreement of any
manuscript of T with the consensus of outside versions gives I
us what is in all probability the original reading. And I find j
a considerable number of cases in which such readings are =!
found in R alone. At the same time it seems also to be true j
that R has a number of individual corruptions. The precise J
genealogy of this manuscript will probably never be determined. ]
Summary and conclusion. — It cannot be said that Ta as a |
whole is “far superior” to TjS. The reverse would hardly he
\ 1
I
I
i
J
Summary and conclusion on manuscripts of T
127
the case either ; but it seems to me that is at least a rather
more complete representative of the T tradition, and probably
in general a better one, than Ta. The texts of Ta and are
closely related but independent offshoots of the T archetype.
Each omits some original features which are contained in the
other (but such omissions are more numerous in Ta than in
Tp). Each also contains some secondaiy additions. Neither
omissions nor additions are very numerous in either one. More
numerous in both are slight verbal alterations; and in the
majority of cases in which such variations occur it is im-
possible to say which is the original. When the outside Panca-
tantra versions agree unanimously with one against the other,
or with any single ms. of T against the rest, the original is
thereby determined. When they too differ among themselves,
or when they do not agree with either Ta or T13, there is
usually no way to decide which reading was found in the
original T.
CHAPTER VI
EXAMPLES OF METHOD OF RECONSTRUCTION:
ORIGINAL AND UNORIGINAL AGREEMENTS
Purpose of this chapter. — In Chapter III I laid down the
principle that agreements in sense or exact language between
two or more independent versions constitute prima facie evi-
dence as to the sense or language of the original. In Chapter
IV I indicated the versions which can be shown to be inter-
related. With these exceptions, I regard all the versions covered
by my study as independent; that is, as related only thru the
original Pahcatantra, not thru any secondary archetype, in
whole or in part. In Chapter V I undertook to show the
fallacy of Hertel’s assumption of certain other secondary rela-
tionships. In this sixth chapter I shall present some examples
of the workings of my method of reconstruction. First I shall
quote a continuous passage of some length (Book I, prose
§§ 34—48 inch, with the verses that occur therein, I vss 7 — 23
inch), with the readings of all the versions. I have selected
this passage as one of the best examples of an extensive por-
tion of continuous text in which most of the versions agree
closely with each other, not only in sense, but in exact lan-
guage. Only the Bj-hatkatha versons (So and Ks) are very ill
represented in it. The reason for this is that the passage con-
tains no action at all; it is distinctly undramatic. And the
Brhatkathst versions limit themselves primarily to the dramatic
jparts of the text, the stories proper; they practically exclude
the rest.
This passage is an illustration of the working-ouL of the
reconstruction under the most favorable circumstances. Thruout
the most of it, there can be little or no question of the general
sense of the original. Possible doubts arise, generally speaking,
only as to the precise language. My general rule, both as to
agreements in sense and as to agreements in exact language,
Reconstruction of Hook 1 §§ 34 — 48 and vss 7 — 23
129
^ is to assume that correspondences between versions that are
I not secondarily related establish a prima facie case for the
original. Such prima facie evidence is not seriously contro-
J verted by variations in other versions, provided these other
: versions do not agree among themselves, and provided there
‘ is no other, special reason for doubting that the original read
as indicated by the agreement first establisht. When indepen-
j dent agreements can be shown to exist among the other (dis-
cordant) versions also; that is, when two irreconcilable agree-
I ments are found in the same passage, both apparently supported
j by independent versions; then we can only conjecture wdiich
j was the original. One of the two agreements must certainly
I be accidental, since the original obviously cannot have contained
I both. Such cases occur, I believe, only with very minor and
I petty agreements, usually concerning slight variations in a
I single word, such as could without much difficulty have oc-
^ curred independently. Examples are found in the following
I passage under § 34 (Pn and H), § 35 (T, SPp, Hp, Pn on the
i one hand, against SPa, Hm, and Spl), vs 9 (T, SP^, and N
j against SPa, H, and P^), vs 12 (Ta, SP, H against Tp, N,
; Spl, and v. 1. of SP), etc.— Occasionally there are other, special
^ reasons for doubting the originality of an agreement between
1 independent versions, even sometimes when there is no divergent
i agreement among other versions. Examples of such “ unoriginal
I agreements ” will be furnisht at the end of this chapter.
5 Such explanatory comments as seem necessary to make my
\ decisions entirely clear are added ta each section or verse,
rather fully at first, more briefly in the secjuel. I trust th<nt
I these comments, taken in connexion with the preceding chapters
h of this Introduction, will leave no one in the dark as to my
\ methods and the basis of tliem.
J ' Regonstkijotion of Book I §§ 34—48 akd vss 7 — 23
I J/’o^e.—For abbreviations of texts here referred to, and explanation of
^ typogi'aphical devices used in the reconstruction, see the introductory
pages of Volume I, Italics indicate paid^ of the reconstructed text which are
' not verbally certain; parentheses enclose parts which may not have been in
i the original, even in general sense.— In the prose miiom of the following
1 passage I print first the readings of all the Paficatantxa versions used by
i me, so far as they contain the secti^m in question; then my reconstrucfion ;
i Eilgerton, PaRcatantra. II.
1
130
Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction
tlien my comments. In the mrses^ on the other hand, I print lirst a list of
the versions in which the verse occurs; then my reconstruction, then the
variants of all the versions, and the complete text of the Brhatkatha and
Pahlavi versions; then my comments.
I §34
T A 11 pmia^ cahravit: avayos tavad bhak^ita^e^am aharanirvartanam*^
asty ova.
SP 78 avayos tSvad aliaro bhak^itasesas tisthati.
SPa avayos tavad bbak§itase§a aliara aste.
Hp 52. 18 avayos tavad bhak^ita^esabarab pracuras tisthati.
Hm 10, bottom (as Hp except that it omits tavad and reads pracuro ’sti).
Spl 8. 16 avayor bhak^itasesa abaro ^sty eva. (Here addition.)
Pii 6.1 punas cabravit: avayos tavad bbaksitasesaharamatravartanam asty
eva.
Sy A 3. 9 (before Story 1 ; transposed in position) Sind wir docb gut auf-
gehoben an seiner Pforte und finden unseren Uiiteidialt [und ist unser
Rang niclit danacb, &e.; tliis does not correspond to tbe Sanskrit of
this passage].
Ar in sense as Sy.
Not in So or K?.
mss. ^ivai'tanam.
Reconstruction:
[punan cahravit i) avayos tavad bliaksitase^a aliaro ’sty {eva)*
Comments:
The words piina4 c§:bravit occur only in T and Pn. They seem natural,
and their omission in the othei^s does not prove unoriginality; but being
found only in two interrelated versions they cannot be attributed with
certainty to the original. They are therefore printed in parentheses and
of course a fortiori in italics, for even if something of the same sense
was present in the original, we have no proof that it contained these
words.
The word Svayos in T, SP, H, Spl, Pn, and the sense in Sy and Ar.
It is clearly an original word.
The word tSvad is supported by T, SP, H, and Pn. There being no
reason to believe in secondary connexions between SP-H on the one hand
and T or P^ on the other, the word is doubtless original.
After this we assume for the original bliak§ita4e§a aharo. So Spl, and,
except for sandhi at the end, SPa, obviously the true reading of SP (the
edition with SPp merely transposes the two words, whose onginal order
is proved by the agreement of all the others). There is no reason to
believe in secondary relations between Spl and SP, and their agreement
alone raises a strong presumption as to the original. But this presumption
is only confirmed by the vaiiations of the others. H merely combines the
two words as a compound, and adds the adjective pracuras, which has
Reconstruction of Book I §§34, 35
131
no parallel elsewhere and may be assumed to be secondary. T (the mss.
corruptly) expands aharo into a compound aharanirvartanam (V), and then
makes bhak§° a neuter agreeing with it— also clearly secondarily. Pn
follows, but emends, this reading of T, running together the two words
as H does (a simple and doubtless secondary change). The Pahlavi
versions have no equivalent for bhak^itasesa.
That the verb of the sentence was asti is indicated by the agreement
of T and the two Jain versions with Hm and (almost) with HPa, the
original version of SP, whose aste is doubtless an easy change from asti.
The word eva at the end is found only in T and the Jain versions
and therefore cannot he considered certain; it makes good sense but is
^ not absolutely required. Therefore it is printed in parentheses as a
possible but not certain part of the original.
I §S5
T A 11. 2 karatakam damanaka aha: katham aharamatrarthi kevalaih
bhavan, sarvas tavat pradhanasevarii’^ kurnte viseaartln.
sadhu cedam ucyate.
SP 78 damanakab: katham aharamatriirthi bhavSn. rajanam avalo-
kaya. akarnaya.
SPa damanaka aha : katham ahararthi bhavan sevate. tatha ca.
Hp 52. 19 damanakah saro^am ahaf: hatham aharamatrarthi bhavan se-
vate. etan na yuktam. yatab-
Hm 11. 1 damanakab saro^am aha: katham ahararthi bhavan kevalaih
rajanaih sevate. etad ayuktam uktaih tvaya. yatah*
So 33, 34 ah etat karatakac chriitva dlnro damanako ’bravit, antarblmya
prabbob prapyo visesab sarvada (Brockhaus sarvatha) bu-
dhaib, ko hi nama na kiirvita kevalodarapuranam.-^'^
Not in Ks.
Spl 8. 17 damanaka aha: tat kiih bhavan ahararthi kevalam eva. tan
na yuktam. uktam ca.
Pn 6. 2 damanaka aha: katham aharamatrarthi kevalaiii bhavan pra-
dhanasevaiU kurute, na vise^arthitaya. sadhu cedam ucyate.
Sy A 5 Dmng sprach: Bruder, [ich habe diese Gescbiclite gehort: abcr|
wer immer einem Hemi dient, tut dies doch nioht bloJ3 um seines
Bandies willen.’^
Ar as Sy.
*^T mss. pradhanaseva, or pradhanath, omitting sevaih. f Bo v. 1. ; text brtitc.
**The last part of So, and probably of Sy also, represents a partial fusion
of this and the follomng verse or verses.
Eeconstruction:
damanaka aha: katham ahar(amatr)arthi (fe^yoZawl) bhavan. sarmstfimt
pradhanaBevmfh kurute Yi^Q^drihi. sadhu cedam ucyate.
Comments:
The words damanaka aha with T, SP, H, Spl, Pn; except that T prefixes
karat akaih, H inserts saro^am. Both may be presumed to be second-
ary, being unsupported ehsewhcre.
<1*
132 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction
katham is clearly original (T, SP, H, Pn^ Spl kiih).
aliaramatrartM with T, SP|3 (ed.), Hp, Pii; ahararthi SPa, Hm, Spl.
It is interesting to observe that both readings are found in the internal
tradition of both SP and H. In general SPa is apt to give the true
reading of SP; but this is not always the case, and the agreement of
SPP (ed.) and Hp may be that of the Ur-SP. Either reading coixld be
changed into the other so easily and naturally that there is no way of
deciding the question with confidence. The evidence for »matra- is strong
but not conclusive; it must go in parentheses.
kevalaih seems at first sight pretty surely original, being found in T,
Hm, Spl, Pji, and (in the cpd. kevalodaraptxrapam) in So. In spite of the
fact that it is redundant if -matra- is original, I should accept it but for
the fact that it occurs also in the following verses, from which it seems
quite clear that So, at least, got the entire cpd. of which it forms a part
(for -udarapuranam is certainly derived from the verses). And since it
occurs neither in SP (a or (3) nor in Hp, it seem^ likely that it was second-
arily inserted in the ms. or mss. of H to which Hm goes back. This leaves
only T and Jn as authorities for kevalaih here; and because they are
interrelated and have many secondary features in common, we cannot be
certain that kevalaiii was original. It must therefore go in parentheses.
bhavan is supported by T, SP, H, Spl, Pn (slightly transposed in Spl
and [?] Hm), and hence is certainly original.
sarvas tiivat is found only in T in just this form. But note So sarvada
(or *tha), and Sy wer immer (= sarvas) eiiiem Herrn dient, tut dies docli
(= tavat?) . . . These readings, and especially Sy, seem to show tliat the
subject of the verb which follows, in the original, was not the preceding
bhavEu (as in SPa, H, Pn — by omission of the word sarvas), but rather
that bhavSa was the subject of an asti understood, to which ahar(amatr)-
artiii was predicate. The agreement of T, So, and Pa in making the
subject of the following verb general establishes sarvas (tavat) as at least
the general sense of the original. Both words must, of course, be put in
italics, as we liave only T as authority for their exact language, tavat
need hardly be'piit in parentheses, since its sense is sux^ported by Sy “doch’^
pradhanasevShh kurute is the reading of Pn, adopted by Hertel also
in T as the probable reading to which his ,corrupt mss, go back. This
illustrates the fact referred to above, p. 38, that Pn often shows signs
of having had before him a better text of T than any of our mss. The
sense is supported by Sy (einem Herrn dient) and So (antarbhciya
prabhofi), and by SP« and H sevate (preceded in Hm by rajaiiaiii, i)er-
haps a good old reading, cf. SPp [ed.] rSjEnam avalokaya, which other-
wise is obviously a corruption). TTie evidence shows that some form or
derivative of the root sev occurred in the original; for the rest we can
he sure only of the general sense. Therefore we jprint these words in
italics except for the letters sev, which are roman.
vise^arthi with T; Pn vise^arthitaya of course does not prove this to
be original. But So vise^b shows not only that the general sense was
such, hut that the stem vise^a- was present; for there is no evidence of
Reconstruction of Book I § 35, vss 7, 8
133
dependence between So and T or Pn, and it is hardly likely that the
verbal coincidence is a mere accident. The other versions omit it.
The fact that H adds here etan na yuktam (Hm etad ayuktam iiktaiii
tvaya), and Spl tan na yuktam, is probably not to be regarded as pointing
to anything original. The value of H as evidence is diminisht by the
failure of SP to show anything of the sort; and this is such a common
stock-phrase that it is easy to suppose that it was inserted independently.
It would be possible to insert it in the text in parentheses after vise-
sarthi; but my experience with H and Spl makes me so confident that
they do not here reproduce the original, that I refrain from doing so.
At the end occurs in T, Pn sadhii cedam ucyate. That something of
the same general sort occurred here is indicated by SPa tatha ca, H
yatal.i, Spl uktaih ca. There is no special reason for choosing one as the
original rather than another, except the general principle that when other
things arc absolutely eqxial, the chances favor T (here supported by Pn).
Hence 1 print T’s reading, of course in italics, since only the general
sense and not the exact language is assured.
I vs 1
Occurs in the same position in T I. 6, SP I. 8, N 11.5, Hp II. 31,
Hm II. 35, Spl L 22, l^n 1. 9, Sy I. 3, Ar, and (fused with last part of
preceding, I § 35, and possibly with next vs) in So 34 ab.
Reconstruction:
suhrdam npakarakaranad clvi^atam apy apakarakaraiiat
nrpasaihsraya i?yate budbair jatliaraih ko na bibbarti kevakin.
Variants:
b, Tp, Spl, l*n capy for apy.
So (ef. preceding passage) ko hi nama na kurvita kevalodarapilranain
(the last word seems to show influence of the next- vs).
Sy denn der Bauch kann sich iiberall sattigen; sondern darum dient
er, um seinen N^chsten Gates und seinen Feinden Uebles zu^uftigen.
Ar as Sy.
Comments :
The entire text is certainly original with the possible exception of cSpy
for apy in b. The agreement of Ta with SP, N, and H makes it highly
probable that apy is right ^ for Spl and Pi? are secondarily related to T
and tlieir agreement with Tp is therefore no proof of originality. However,
the change is so slight that it could easily be made independently, in
either direction; so that we cannot be certain. I therefore print apy, but
print the a- in italics as not being literally certain (it may have been cS-).
I YS S
Occurs in the same position in SP I. 9, N II. 6, Hp II, 32, Hm IT. 37,
Spl L 23, Pp. 1. 10; cf. So 34 b, quoted under preceding vs.
134
Chapter VI; Examples of method of reconstruction
Reconstruction :
yasmifi jivati jivanti bahavah sa tu jivati
bako ^pi kini na kixvute caiicva svodarapuranain.
Variants:
1), Bpl so ’tra; SP ed., H jivatu (SPa, N, Jn text), c, Hm kiiko ’pi. Jn
vayaiisi kiiii na kurvanti. d, SP °posanain, but SPa text.
Comments:
Since the Jain versions are independent of SP-N, their -agreement with
SPoc and N in b establishes the original as jivati, in all probability. In
c it is impossible to he sure of the language, whether bako ’pi . . . kurute
or vayansi . . . kurvanti, since SP-N-H agree on one, and Jn en the
other.— The literal identity of So’s -odarapiiranam with the end of this
vs is not likely to be accidental, tho the preceding words in So point
rather to vs 7. The two vss are doubtless fused in So.
Before the next vs both T and SP -read api ca, which is therefore to
he attributed to the original,
I TS 9
Occurs in the same position in T I. 7, SP 1. 10, N II. 7, Hp II. 30,
Hm IL 41, Pn 1. 12, Sy 1. 4, Ar; and So, 36, not quite in the same
position, hut separated from the preceding by a sloka and a half which
corresponds to §§ 43 and 44 of my reconstruction.
Reconstruction:
svalpasnayuvasavai<e^malinaiii nirmahsam apy asthi goh
sva labdhva parito^am eti na ca tat tasya ksudhaA santaye
sihho jambukam afikam Egatam api tyaktva nihanti dvipaih
sarvab krechragato ’pi vafichati janah sattvanurupam phalam.
Variants:
a, T svalpam. 1’, SP, N ^vasekamalinaih (but SPa text). N, H, Pn
asthikaih for asthi goh, b, H bhavet for ca tat. SP, Hp, Pn ksudha, but
SPa with N, Hm, and T °ah*
So [maivam] atmanurGpaih hi phalaih sarvo ’pi vafichati,
svi tu^yaty asthimatrena kesari (Brockhaus kcs'^) dhavati dvipe.
Sy Eiii trEger Mann freut sich auch an etwas VerEchtlichem, wie der
Hund, der einen trockenon Knoclien gefunden hat und sich in seiner
Gemeinheit liber ihn freut, obgleich er keinen Gonufi von ihm hat. Aher
der Strebsame und Weise gibt sick nur im Notfall mit ein wenig Gutem
zufrieden, und strebt vielmehr nach Vermehriing, wie es ihm zukommt,
gleich dem Lowen, der einen Hasen gefaBt hat, dann aher einen Wildr
esel erblickt und den Hasen preisgibt in der Hoifnung auf den Wildesel.
Ar in sense as Sy.
Comments :
In a the agreement of Ur-SP (establisht by unanimity of SP, N, H)
with Pn ]n*oves that svalpa- is original, against T’s svalpam. But in the
Reconstruction of Book 1 vss U— 1 1
135
case of the two other syllables of pada a and one syllabic of pada I)
which I print in italics, the disagreement among the offshoots of Ur-8P
leaves us in doubt as to the original. Both T and Pp are independent
ofUr-SP; and when, as here, some of the Ur-SP texts agree with T, and
others with a variant of P]^, we can only guess which was the original.
The chances seem to favor asthi gob, since astliikaih looks like a lectio
facilior.—l^otQ that So here preserves several of the words of the oinginal
quite literally (-anurupaih, phalam, sarvo ’pi vailchati, sva, asthi-). As to
Sy, its correspondence is also fairly close, but note bow it changes the
Indian animals, jackal and elephant, into a hare and a wild-ass.
Its 10
Occurs in the same place in T I. 8, SP I 11, N II. 8, Up 11. 37, . Hm
II. 42, Pn 1. 13, Sy I. 5, Ar.
Reconstruction :
langtilacalaiiam adha^ caranavapataiii
bhumau nipatya vadanodaradarsanaih ca
sva pindadasya kurute gajapungavas tu
dhiraiU vilokayati catusatais ca bbuGkte.
Variants:
a, SP °avaghatam (but SPa text, which H also intends with its corrupt
°ava§ana). b, Ta caranodara®. c, SPa madavaranas tu. d, Tp na for ca.
Sy Der Hund dagegen wedelt lange seinen Sebweif, [bis man ilim einen
Knochen vorwirft (this is omitted in Sy but supplied by Scliultbess from
Ar),] walirend der iibermutige [Sclmlt. says the word means literally
trimkene ” or “ bimnstige ”] Elefant seine Starke und Kraft kemit und,
wenn man ihm ehrerbietig Kahrimg reicht, sich sehr rar macht, bis er friCt.
Ar in sense as Sy.
Comments:
The text is certain thruout. But note that Sy seems to indicate agree-
ment with SPa madavaranas in e (perhaps this word was added as a
gloss in the original, or, more likely, independently in the archetypes of
SPa and Pa). The Arabic texts contain no such epithet, however.
Its 11
Occurs only in T I. 9 and SP 1. 12, but in the same place; and as T
and SP are independent, doubtless original.
Reconstruction:
vidyavikramajaih yo ’tti sadhu so ’tti ’ha manavalji
sva ’pi nSma svalSfignlacalanad 'balvm amiute.
Variants :
d, for balim of Ta, TP has phalara, and SP pin4am (which latter may
be the original reading).
The similarity of this verse to the preceding makes it barely possible
that it is a secondary insertion, made independently in T and SP; but
136
Chapter YI; Examples of motliod of reconstruction
there are so few such, comparatively, in the original text of SP («), that
this is unlikely.
I TS 13
Occurs in the same place in T L 10, SP I. 13, N II. 9, Hp II. 38, Hm
11. 43, Spl I. 24, Sy I. G, Ar.
Reconstruction :
yaj jivyate ksanam api prathitaih manusyair
vijhanavikraraayasobliir abhagnamanani
tan nama jivitam iha pravadanti tajjMli
kako ’pi jivati ciraw ca baliih ca hhunkte.
Variants:
a, SP yo (a yaj) jivati . . . prathito (a °tarh) manu^yo; N corrupt, intends
text (yak^ivyata . . . prathitaiii manusyair); H text (except Hm jivati). b,
Spl vijfianasauryavibhavaryagiinaih sametam. SP alaSghyamanah, but a
text (v. 1. ^manab). c, SP iti for iha, but a text. Ta loke for tajjilah; Tp
and one ms. of SP santah. d, T|3, N, Spl, and two mss. of SP ciraiii ca ;
T« (ed.), SP, H eiraya. N bhuktva.
Sy Wer nihmvoll und mit vieleii lebt, wird, wenn er auch niir kurze
Zeit lebt, fiir langlebig geachtet, aber wer unter Phigen alleiii lebt, dessen
Leben wird, auch wenn er lange lebt, niclit fur eiu Leben, sondern fiir
ein Un-Lehen geachtet.
Ar in sense as Sy.
Comments:
As to a, it is evident that the Ur-SP read exactly as T and Spl, and
this is therefore certainly the true text. In b also the text is subject to
no doubts. In c the only possible doubt attaches to the last word, which
we should say was tajjfiSb? with SP and Spl (which are independent of
each other), without any question, but for the agreement of a single ms.
of SP with T3, santab* It is highly probable that tajjuab is the original
and santab a secondary variant. Ta loke is surely secondary.
I vs 13
Occurs in the same place in T 1. 11, SP 1. 14, N II. 10, Spl 1. 25, Pn 1. 14.
Reconstruction :
supttra vai kunadika supuro musrikafijalib
susarfittt^t^b kapuni^ab svalpakena ’pi tu^yati.
Variants:
a, Spl sygt for vai. b, Spl, and v, 1. of SP, md^ika'^; so N intends, c,
SPa, N and Pn susadito^b; SP cd., T, Spl text. SP kupuru^ab (but a
text), d, SP svalpab ke°, but a text or °paih ke°.
Comments;
In b either mtlsaka® or intt^ika® may have been in the original. In c
also it is impossible to decide between susaihtosab and susaititu^t^ibj as
the Ur-SP cannot be determined. The rest is certain.
Kocoiisitructiou of Book I vss 1*2 —15, § 3G
137
I TS 14
Occurs in the same place in T 1. 12, SP 1. 16, N II. 11, Hii II. 39, Ilm
IL 45, Pn 1. 15, Sy I. 7, Ar.
Keconstruction:
ahitalutavicarasunyabuddhehL srutisamayair bahubliir babi^kptasya
iidarabharanaraatrakevaleccbob purusapasos ca pasos ca ko vi&e§al,i.
Variants:
b, T sruta®. Ta pariskrtasya, Hm tiraskr®. c, Pn ^raatram eva lipsob.
By Zii den Rindern nnd Schafen ist der Meiisch zn rechnen, der kein
anderes Interesse hat als seinen Baucb.
Ar in sense as Sy.
Comments seem unnecessary; the entire text is certain.
I vs 15
Occurs in the same place in SP (ed.) I. 16, Pn 1. 16. But not found in
SPa nor in N nor H, nor anywhere else. As the sense is very similar to
that of the preceding . verse, I regard it as highly likely that it was in-
serted independently in SPp and Pn; it is easy to see how ditiPerent re-
dactors, happening to be familiar with this vs, could insert it after the
preceding vs which they found in their originals. Therefore I enclose it
in parentheses as being of more than doubtful originality.
Reconstruction:
(gnrusakatadburaiiidharas trnasi samavisame^u ca langalarakar§i
jagadupakaranaiii pavitrayonir narapasuna sa msi^yate gavendrabO
Variants;
b, Pn "^apakarsi, and so one ms. of SP; but ^avakarsi is a better reading,
c, SP °karane (cannot be right), d, Pn kirn u miyate (most mss. katham
upaniiyate) for sa visi°.
Comments:
The variants of Pii in b and d may be right— assuming that the verse
is original at all.
T A 12 karataka aha: avaih tSvad apradhanau, kim avayor anena
vyaparepa.
SP 105 kara^aka ^la: avaib tavad apradb^aujtat*^ kim anena
vyapSrepa.
kai’atako brdte: avaih tSvad apradhanau, tadapy’^* avayob kim
anaya vicaranaya.
kara|akaaha: avaih tavad apradlianaii, tat kim avayor anena
vyEparena.
kai’a^aka §ha: Svaih tivad apradhanau, kim anena
vyapSrepa.
or K§.
ilg sprach: Priife die Sadie, deim jeder mujB sieb selbst er-
und wem das seiner Stellung Entsprechende zuteil geworden
Hp 54. 151
HmlS. 8f
Spl 10. 1
Pn 6. 32 ■
Not in So
Sy A 6
kennen,
138 Chapter VI t Examples of method of reconstruction
ist, der soli sich dartiber freuen. Und unsere Stellung ist niclit so, daC
wir uns nicht mit dem begntigen sollten, was wir baben,
Ar in sense as Sy.
ed. begins with etac chrutva, which a omits; a also omits tat; a v. 1.
of a adds asmSkam at the end. tathapy.
Kecon struct! on:
karataka aha: avaiii tavad apradhanau, (tat) kim avayor aiiena vya-
pEre^a.
Comments :
The text seems certain in almost every word. Note that avayor is
supported by H, indicating that Ur-SP had it, tho it has dropt out in
BP. The word tat is the only doubtful one, being not found in T, SP«
or Pn, tho found in SPp fed.) and Spl, whereas H has tadapy or ta-
tha])y. The chances seem to me about even that tat, or at least an equi-
valent, was in the original.
I §
T A 12 damanaka aha: kiyata kalena pradhano vEpradhano
' bhavati.
Tji so ’bravit : bhadra, kiyata kalena pradhano va
bhavati.
SP 105 damanakah : kiyata kalenapradhano ’pi pradhauatam
apnoti. uktaih ca.
SPa so ’bravit ; kiyata kalenapradhanah pradhano
bhavati. iiktaiii ca.
Hp 51. 16 1 1 i. i. * kiyata kalenamatyab* pradhanatam
Hm 13. 9 i ® • apradbEnatEm va labhate*^. yatab.
Bpl 10.8 damanaka aba; ma maivaih vada.
Pii 6. 32 so ’bravit: bhadra, kiyatapi kElena pradhEno ’pradhano ’pi
bhavati. uktaih ca.
Not in So or K?.
Sy A 6, end: Pmng sprach: (“vs 8”) Der Strebsame und der Nicht-
strebsame bleiben nicht auf diner Kangstufe. [A misunderstanding of
the Sanskrit, but clearly pointing to pradhana and apradhana.j
Ar? Perhaps represented by OSp p. 50, middle: Las dignidades e las
medidas de los bomnes son comunas e son contrarias. — I find nothing
like this in most of the Arabic texts; but OSp frequently preserves
the original Pahlavi better than any other Ar texts.
’*'Hp dam^ punar aha, v. 1. simply danianakah. Hni ^EmEtyEb . . . labhante.
Reconstruction:
so 'bravit: {bhadra^ kiyata kalena ’pradhano (’pt) pradhano bhavati.
{uhtam ca.)
Comments:
so ’bi’avit, with Tp, SPo, and Pn, seems a good guess at the original
but can hardly be regarded as certain; hence the italics.
Reuoustructiou of Book 1 ^ 37 and vss 10, 17
139
bluidra, doubtful, since found only in Tfi and the dependent Pn,
kiyata kalena is cstablisht by T, SP, H, and Pn (Pn varies by in-
serting api).
The agreement of SP (edition in sense, and a, the more original, in
almost exact language) with Pn (which is only transposed in order) seems
to make apradhano (’pi) pradhano substantially certain, only the particle
api being not entirely certain (since omitted in SPa), tho I think it is
highly probable; I put it in parentheses. H and T have, seemingly indei^en-
dently, altered the idea by making it two-sided instead of one-sided; but
the only side which is appropriate to the present situation is that one
out of office may get into office^ not the reverse. The fact that SP agrees
so closely with Pn indicates that it furnishes us with the reading of
Ur-SP; from which it follows that H is secondary.
bhavati is establisht by T, Pn, and SP«.
uktabi ca is found in SP and Pn; H has yatah. In spite of the agree-
ment of two independent versions, it can hardly be considered certain,
since all versions frequently add such a phrase before any sententious
stanza.
I vs 16
Occurs in tlie same place in T 1. 13, SP L 17, N II. 12, Hp 11. 40,
Hm IL 46, Pn 1. 18, Sy I. 8 (second part), Ar.
Reconstruction :
na kasya cit kas cid iha prabhavad bhavaty udaro ’bliimatal.i khalo va
loke gurutvaih viparitataiii ca svace§titany eva naraiii nayanti.
Variants:
a, H svabhavad. c, K, H, Pn va fur ca.
Sy Denii der Strebsame gelangt von eiuer niedrigen Stufe zur Huhe,
und der Nichtstrebsame kommt durch seine Indolenz von der Hdhe zu
Geringem berunter.
Ar in sense as Sy.
Comments :
The only possible doubt attaches to ca in pSda c. We cannot be sure
wbat Ur-SP read, since one of its branches reads ca and the other vS;
T agrees with the former, Pn with the latter. The chances are about
even, but perhaps slightly in favor of T and SP. Hence I print ca, in
italics.
I vs 17
Occurs in the same place in T 1. 15 (after insertimr of 1. 14, found
nowhere else and presumably unoriginal), SP I. 18, N II. 13, Hp 11. 41,
Hm IT. 47, Pn 1. 19, Sy I. 9, Ar.
Eeconstriiction :
aropyate ’^ma ^ailagraiti yatha yatnena bhUyasI
nipatyate sukhena ’dhas tatha Tma gunado^ayoh.
140
Chapter VI; Examples of method of reconstruction
Variants:
a, H sila sailCj but Hp v. J. ’smS. sailSgre; SPa and N also ‘^agre. b, T,
Hm yatnena mahata yatha. c, T, Hm ksanenadhas. SPa suklienaiva. Pji
patyate sukham evSdhas.
Sy Und scbwer ist es ftlr einen, sich aiis der Geringlieit znr Hdhe zu
erheben, wShrend es dem TrSgen leicht ist, zur Geringheit zu kommen,
gleichwie es scbwer ist, einen Stein in die Holie zu heben, aber leicht,
ihn zu Boden zu werfen.
Ar texts mostly agree in sense with Sy (JCap and Eleazar are not
clear, and may possibly indicate a reading more like the Sanskrit).
Comments:
In a the only question is sail%raiii or ^gre, and the former is proved to
be right by the agreement of T, Pn with SP^, showing that SPa and N
have here probably departed (independently?) from the Ur-SP. In b and
c the most interesting and instructive thing is the agreement of Hm
with T. It is as certain as anything of this kind can be that the agree-
inent is purely accidental*, that is, that the scribe who is ultimately
responsible for Hm’s readings did not know the T, but simply knew the
stanza in this form as a floating proverb. As for his having inherited
this reading from the original, the very idea is absurd; for the agreement
of SP, N, and Hp is absolutely conclusive as to what the Ur-SP read,
and Pn’s agreement herewith further establishes the original Pafic. Ac-
cordingly we have a clear case of a floating proverbial stanza which is
responsible for the same change being made in two entirely unrelated
Paficatantra texts.— The word nipatyate is establislit by T and the Ur-
SP, the word adhas by all texts but SPa, and that sukhena rather than
k§a9ena was original is shown by Pij (sukham) in comparison with SP,
N, and Hp.
T A 13
SP 111 tasmad
Hp 5b, 3 )
Hm 14. 4 J
I § 38
tad bhadrayatto (em. Hertel as SP) by atma sarvasya.
(a tat) bhadratmayatto by atma sarvasya.
tad bbadra svayatnayatto (Hp prayat°) by atma sarvasya.
Not in Jn, So, Ks.
Sy A 7 Darum sollen aiicb wir bestrebt sein, unsere Stellung zu fordern.
Ar in sense as Sy.
Eeconstruction :
tad bhadra ^tm^yatto by StmE sarvasya.
Comments :
The perfect agreement of T, SPa, and H, and the fairly close cor-
respondence of Pa in sense, establishes every word except atmayatto, or
rather the first syllable of that word. The reading of SP is adopted by
Hertel in T, which is obviously corrupt; and the chances are that this
is the original. But the first syllable must be printed in italics, since SP
is the only authority we have for it; even H varies.
lleeonstruotion of Book I §§ 38—40
141
I § 39
T A 13 karatakali (|3 °ka aha) ; atha ’tra bhavaii kim kartunianal.i.
SP 111 karatakah (a °ka alia):atlia bhavan kiiii vak^yati
(« braviti).
lip 55. 1 I , , , vadati , , „ , .
Hm 14. 5 J brate =
Spl 11.8 karataka aba: atha bhavan kiih karti
Pn 7. 9 karataka aha : atha bhavan kiili vakti
Not in So or Ks.
Sy A 7. 3 Klilg sagto; So spricli jetzt, was begelirst dii?
At in sense as Sy (JCap 42,11 Qiiibus nunc firmasti animiimV),
Reconstruction :
karataka aha : atha (? ’tra) bhavan kiiii kartumandli.
karatako
karataka
karataka
bhavan kiiii
bhavan kiiii kartumanah.
bhavan kiili vaktumanab.
braviti.
Comments :
The word atra is found only in T and its originality is more than
doubtful; yet it may have been omitted in the others, and therefore it
is safer to indicate the slight possibility that it is original by inserting
it in parentheses with a question-mark.— Otherwise the original is quite
certain (aha is guaranteed by the agreement of SPa with Tp and Jn),
except for the last word. T and Spl seem to establish the reading of
Ur-T as kartumanah; SPa and H establish the reading of Ur-SP as
braviti. Pn looks like a sort of compromise between the two, but may
well be based solely on the reading of T-Spl, varied independently by
Pn himself. Pa supports kartumanah better than braviti, and I therefore
prefer the former; hut it must be printed in italics, since we have only
the single stream of tradition, the Ur-T and its offshoots, to guarantee it
literally.
I § 40
T A 13 damaiiakah: ayaiii tavat svami bhirus ca bbiruparivaras ca
muc)liamatih.
Tp so *bravit: [&c.] bbiruparivaras
SP 111 so ’bravit: ayam avayoh svami pihgalako bhito bbitaparivaras
ca mu4hamatih.
SPa damaiiaka aha: [&c.]
Hp 55. 4 1 sa aha: ayaih tSvat svSmi piflgalakah kuto ’pi bhayi^t’’* saea-
Um 14. 5 ) kitah parivytyopavi^tah*
Spl 11. 8 so ’bravit: adyasmatsvami piBlgalako bhito bhitaparivara^
ca vartate,
Pn 7, 9 so ’bravit; ayaih tavad asmatsvami bhito bliitaparivara^ ca
m1l4hamanSh saiiiti^thate.
Not in So or K§.
Sy A 7. 4 Dmng sprach: Ich gehe direkt zum Filrsten, denn er ist ein
Kindskopf nnd seiii Gefolge'ist furcbtsam,
Ar in sense as Sy.
*IIni karaniit.
142
Chapter VI; Examples of method of reconstruction
Reconstruction :
so ’brayit*. ayaih tavat svami (piiigalako) "bhito bhitaparivaras ea mudlia-
matib.
Comments;
so ’bravit is pretty firmly establisbt by T(3, SP ed., and Jn,
a.yaih is in all Sanskrit texts but Spl.
tSvat is establisbt beyond reasonable doubt by the agreement of JI
with T, Pn ; it is fairly clear that Ur-SP read tavat as H, and that SP’s
avayoh is a secondary change (probably due to a phonetic mistake; the
sounds *ava- are common to the two words).
svami is found in all texts (cf. Sy Fiirsten). Jn prefixes asmat-, doubt-
less secondainly; probably no connexion between this and SP avayoli,
wliieli, as has just been indicated, probably replaces tavat of Ur-SP.
pingalako was found in Ur-SP and in Spl, and may have been original;
but it would be very easy to add it secondarily after svami, and the
lack of it in T, Pn makes me dubious. Hence parentheses.
bbito bhitaparivEra^ ca is guaranteed by SP and Jn; T varies slightly,
H more radically.
mtl(jhamatib is guaranteed by T and SP (cf. Pn mtidhainanab, Sy
Kindskopf).
There was no verb at the end. The additions of Jn and H are evi-
dently secondary.
T A 13
SP 112
Hp 55. 5 1
HmU. 7 J
Bpl 11. 11
karatakab
karatako
karataka
Pn 7. 10
Not in So or
Sy A 7. 8 b^lilg sprach:
Ar in sense as Sy.
I § 41: Part 1
p so ’bravit) : kathaiU bhavaii janati.
so ’bravit : kathaiii bhavafi janati.
brate :kiiti tatra (Hm tat) tvaih janasi,
Eha : kathaiii vetti hhavEn yad bhaya-
vi^to ’y^^ svEmi.
so ’bravit : katliaiii bbavafi jEnati.
AVober weLOt du, dafi der Lowe bestUrzt istV
Part 2
T damanakab (P °ka Sba) ; kim atra jileyam. uktaiii ca.
SP damanakab (« ^ka aba) ;kim ati’Eviditam'*^ asti. uktaib ca.
H damanako vadati (Hm brttte) ; kim atrEviditam asti. uktaib ca.
Bpl so ’bravit : kim atx*a jfieyam. yatJi uktaib ca.
Pn damanaka aba :kim atra j Kata vyam.
Not in So or
Sy Dmng spracli: Aiis Anzeicben erkeiine icb es.
Ar in sense as Sy.
"^'SPa atrapy avi°
Reconstruction:
HO ’bravit; katbaih bhavafi janati. damanaka Tiha: kim atra jmyam*
nktaiii ca.
Reconstruction of Book I § 41, vs 18, § 42
143
Comments :
so ’bravit with SP, T|3, and Pn, quite clearly establishing the original,
katliam bhavail janati with T, SP, Pn; slight and evidently independ-
ent variations in H, Spl.
The additions of Spl (yad bbayavi^fo svami) and Sy (daB der Lowe
bestiirzt ist) happen to coincide closely; but they are just the sort of
addition that would be made in a free paraphrase such as Pahlavi, and
in an expansive text such as Spl; and the negative agreement of all the
other texts demonstrates, in my opinion, that these words were not in
the original.
damanaka aha with TjS, SPa, Pn.
kirn atra with all Sanskrit texts.
jfieyam with T, Spl (synonym jfiatavyam in Pn), establishing Ur-T,
But Ur-SP aviditam (astij. The two expressions are practically synony-
mous, and there is no way of telling which was original, as we have
only two independent streams of tradition that oflPer evidence, and each
gives evidence that is internally unanimous but mutually discordant.
One or the other must be printed in italics. In such a case, other things
being absolutely equal (as they seem to be here), I give preference to
T.—If jfieyam is right, there was probably no asti after it.
uktam ca is guaranteed by T, SP, H, Spl,
I vs 18
Occurs in the same place in T L 16, SP 1. 19, N IL 14, Hp II. 43,
Hm IL 49, Spl 1. 43, Pn T. 20, Sy L 10, Ar.
Reconstruction ;
udirito ’rthab pasuna ’pi grhyate hayas ca nagas ca valianti coditiih
aimktam apy uhati pandito janah pareiigitajilanaphala hi buddhayali.
Yariants;
a, N budhyate. h, Pn noditab, H desitalj (Hp v. 1. tiiditab).
Sy Demi ein Weiser erkennt aus jemandes Gesicht, Gewohnheiten und
Blick seine Gesiimiing und was er tun will.
Ar (Wolff p. 12) in sense as Sy.
Comments seem unnecessary; the entire verse is certain.
I § 42
T A 14 tad enam adyai Va prajfiaprabhavenS, ’tmikari^ySmi.’^
SP 116 tad enam adySi ’va prajfiaprabhSvenS ’tmiyaih kari^yami.
Hp 55. 13 tad atra bhayaprastave ’ham etaih prajfiabalenatmiyaiii
kari§yami.
Hm 14, bottom : atra bhayaprastave prajfiS.balenaham enaih avSminam
atmiyaifa kari§yami.
Spl 11. 20 tad adyainaih bbayakulaih prSpya svabuddhiprabhSvei^a
nirbliayaih kyiva vasikrtya ca nijaih sacivyapadavidi
samasadayi^yami,
Pn 7. 18 tad enam adynivatmaprajflaprabhavena vaiSikari^yaimi.
144 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction
Not in So or Ks.
Sy A 7. 5 (before § 41) vielleicht kann icli in dieser Beaturznng bowirken,
daB mich der Lowe zii sick beraiizielit und zum A%‘trauten inacbt.
Ar in sense and position as Sy.
*T mss. have minor variants.
Reconstniction :
tad euaiii {bhayalcularh prapya) ’dyai Va prajiiaprabhavena ’tmi(yaiii) kari-
§yami.
Comments*.
The phrase bhayakulam prapya (Spl) seems supported by H bhaya-
prastave and by Pa (Sy in dieser Bestiirznng). It is at least possible that
it is original, as otherwise we must suppose that it was gdded indepen-
dently by these three versions or their archetypes; none of the three are
interrelated. I should be more confident of the originality of the phrase,
were it not for the fact that both T and SP lack it, and even a negative
agreement between them is worth heeding when they otherwise cor-
i^es^ond so closely as they do in this section; for this means that they have
here preserved the original with remarkable fidelity. Because of the
doubts raised by this fact, I put the phrase in parentheses, tho I think
it likely that something of the sort was in the original.
I’he rest of the section is verbally establisht by T and SP together,
with the others following in sense and partly in language. The only question
is whether the original had atmikari^yami with T, or atmiyam kar° with
Ur-SP (SP, H). The other texts have dififerent synonyms and do not
decide the matter. I print atmifyarb), indicating that the original reading
may have been eitlier one.
I § 4S
T A 14 kara^akab :bhadra, anabhijfio bhavan sevSdbarmasya ;
katham atmikari§yasi.
Tp so ’bravit : [lacuna after bhadra].
SP 116 kamtakah : bhadra, tvarir sev^ahhijfiab.
SP<x karafako ’bravit: anabhijfio bhavan sevadharmasya.
Hp 56. 17 1
Hm 15 3 / 'bravit (Hm brute) : sakhe, tvaih sevanabhijfiab.
Spl 11. 21 kara^aka Sha : anabhijfio bhavan setadharmasya,
tat katham enafii vasikari^yasi.
Pn 7. 18 karataka Sliat . anabliijfio bhavan kila sevadharmasya,
tat kathaya katham atmikari^yasi.
So84cd,35ab evaih damanakenokte sSdhnh karatako ’bravit, svecchaya-
tiprave^o yo na dharmab sevakasya sab. (Of. § 46.)
Not in Ks,
Sy A 8 Klilg sprach: Da du noch nicbt mit Herrschern verkehrt hast und
im Dienste nicht erfaliren bist, wie ist es da mGglich, dad der Lowe
dicb zu sich heranzieht und zum Vertrauten machtV
Ar in sense, as Sy.
Ivoeonstruction of Boitk I §§ 43, 44
145
Ueeoiistructioii:
karatako : bliadraj aiiabhijfio bliavan sevadliariiiasya^ {tat)Jcathcivi
rdmikari^yasL ^
Uomineiits:
karatako witli all texts except Tp.
’Imivit, Tp, SPa, Hp, So; aba, Jn; no verb, Ta, BPp (ed.), Tbe word
would seem well establisbt; but since it is merely a verb of saying and
so particularly subject to secondary substitutions, 1 do not consider it
absolutely certain. Hence italics.
bhadra with T and SP (ed.); H sakbe; omitted in SPa, Jn, The agree-
ment of T with part of the SP tradition, and in sense H, is sufficient to
establish the original ■with reasonable confidence; the others differ only
negatively, by omitting the word.
aiiabhijfio bliavan sev^harmasya, with T, SPa, Jn (Pn inserting kila):
SP ed. and PI have a paraphrase ; So (containing the stem dharma) points
to our text as original. The sense also in Pa.
The rest of the passage is found, among Sanskrit versions, only in T
and Jn, which are secondarily interrelated; hence its language cannot be
assumed to belong to the original, and it must be printed in italics. But
the sense is clearly supported by Pa (Sy wie ist es da moglich etc.),
showing that something of this general sense was in the original.— The
■word tat (Jn) is not found in T and need not have been in the original;
hence parentheses around it.
1 § Part 1
T A 14 damanakab : katliam ahaiii sevanabhijrial.i.
SP IIG danianabah (a °ka aha) : bhadra, kathain aliaih sevanabhijilab.
Ilm ^"5 ^6 I brate^ *' katliam abaih sevanabhijilab*
^ ® pasya.
Spl 11. 22 damanaka aha : | insertion]
Pn 7. 19 so ’bravit ‘ : bhadra, katham ahaiii na sevabhijfiab*
linsertion as SplJ
So 35 cd iti coktab karafakenedaiii damanako ’blij’-adhat.
Not in K§. Sy, Ax only (Sy A 8. 4) Dmng sprach.
Part 2
T nanii mayai ’§a sakalo ’nujividharmo
SP nanu*maya sakalanujividharmo
SPa nanu maya sakalo ’nujividharmo
H, So, nothing.
Spl sakalo ’py anujividharmo
sakalo ’py anujividharmo
Sy, Ar nothing.
‘*'Sonie mss. omit tatha hi.
Eeconstruction :
vijfiatab. api ca.
jflatab* uktaiii ca.
vijfiatab. tatha hi.*^
vijfiata iti.
vijfiatab* iti. uktaih ca.
damanaka dhai bhadra, katham ahaih sevanabhijilab* nanu maySi (’§a)
sakalo ’nujividharmo vijfiatab* ca.
Edgerton, Panc&tantra. II.
10
146
Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction
Comments :
damanaka aha with SP« and Spl; the verb cannot be regarded as
certain, but the name is found in all versions but Pn.
bhadra, with Ur-SP (SP and H) and Pn,
katham ahairi sevanabhijfiab with T and Ur-SP i Pn also very close.
i^anu maya with T and SP.
e§a only in T: hence parentheses and italics.
sakalo ’nujividharmo vijfiatab with T, SPa, and Jii (Jn insert api and
add iti); SP ed. varies slightly.
iiktaih ca with SP ed. and Pn; T api ca; SPa reads tatha hi or omits.
The word iiktam is hardly certain, but ca seems safe.
I vs 19
Occurs in the same place in T 1. 17, SP L 20, N 11. 15, Pn 1. 22, Sy 1. 11, Ar.
Reconstruction:
ko ’tibharab samartbanSiii kiih dflraih vyavasayinam
ko videsab swvidyanaih kab parab priyavadinSrn.
Variants:
c, T ed. with a, N, and v. 1. of SP, savid®;, TP, Pn, and SP ed. text.
We cannot be certain as to which is original, since either makes good
sense and the streams of tradition vary inteimally.
Sy Fdr den erfahrenen Mann gibt’s kein Unternelimen, das ihm ver-
schlossen ware. Denn fiir das Tier gibt’s IJmherirren und fiir den Loweii
fremdes Gebiet, fiir den Weisen und Uiiterwurfigen aber gibt’s keinen
Fremden. [The word Unterwtirfigen represents an emendation by Scliult-
hess: tire ms. has a word meaning “ Verniinftigen,” and this should cer-
tainly be kept, cf. KF 7. 6 “a wise and knowing man.”]
Ar in sense as Sy.
I §
T A 15 karatakab (P °ka aha) : kadacid asav anucitapravesacl bhavan-
tam avamanyate.
SP 120 karatakab (« ^ka aba) : kadaeit tvam anavasarapravesad avaman-
yate svaml.
Hp 56. 10 \ karatako brute : kadaeit tvam anavasarapravesad avaman-
Hrn 15, foot | yate svilmi.
Pn 7. 24 karataka aha : kadacid ayam amici tasthanapravesad
bhavantam avamanyeta.
Not in Spl or K§.
So (cf. 36 a, under § 43; also) 37 etac clirutva karatako ’vadid evaxh kyte
yadi, kupyati praty uta svami tad visesaplialaiii kiitab.
Sy p. 6, 1. 7 IJlilg sprach; [next vs; then, A 9] Dich zioht der Lowe nicht
zu sich lieran, und es diirfte dir nicht leicht seiii, jederzeit mit ihm
ins Gosprach zu kommen. Wic kannst du es erreichen, daB er dich zii
sich heranzieht und zum Vertrauten macht? [Last part is a repetition
of the end of § 43.]
Ar in sense as Sy.
',1
■f
I
4
I
1
I
I
I
Reconstruction of Book 1 vs 19, §§ 45, 46 and vs 20
147
Reconstruction:
karataka aha: kadacit tmm a?^al?a5arapravosad avamaiiyate svtimi.
Comments :
karataka with all texts; aha with Tj3, SPa, Pn, which seems sufficient
proof of its originality.
For the rest, the words left roman are literally found in T, SP, and
Pn (except that Pn has avamanyeta) ; the sense also in So, Pa. The wmrds
printed in italics I read with Ur-SP (SP and H), whereas T, Pn have
synonyms, and vary the order. Possibly the occurrence of the word svami
in So may be taken as some support for that word, instead of T asav
or Pn ayam. Otherwise there is little reason to choose one version rather
than the other.
I § 46
T A 15 damanakali (p so ’bravit) ; asty etat. tathapi.
BP 120 so ’bravit : astv (v. 1. asty) evam. tathSpy avasyam
(o5 om) anujivinaiii (a °na) saihnidhyam karaiiiyam. uktaiii ca (a om u® ca).
Up 66. 11 I so ’bravit (Hm sa cab a) : astv evam. tathapy anujivina saihni-
Hm 16. 1 1 dhyam (Hmsvamisaiii°)avasyaihkaraniyam.yatab.
Pn 7. 24 so ’bravit : asty evam.
Not in Spl, So or Ks.
By A 9, end: Dmng sprach,
Ar, JCap 43. 6 Verum est, ait Dimna, quod dieis; sed— .
Reconstruction:
so ’bravit: asty evam. tatha ’py (anujivina sarimidliyam av^ahjam kara-
nlyam. uktam ca.) ^
Comments:
so ’bravit with T8, SP, II, Pn.
asty with T, Pn, and v. 1. of BP, seems more probable than astv of H
and SP ed., and indeed seems pretty sure,
evam, with SP, H, and Pn, is clearly original rather than etat of T.
tathapi with T, SP, H.
The parenthetized phrase only in Ur-SP, and therefore cannot he re-
garded as a sure part of the original; but since Ur-SP seldom expands,
it is at least very possibly original. The reading of H, which I adopt,
is partly supported by SPa, partly by SPp (ed,).
I vs 20
Occurs in the same place in T I. 18, SP I. 21, N II. 16, Hp 11. 51, Hm
11. 58, Pp I, 28; and nearly in the same place in Spl I. 35 (following our
§ 37) and Pa (Sy 1, 12, inserted in our § 45; Ar as Sy). Cf. also 380
(^5)cd. Reconstruction:
asannam eva nypatir hhajate manu^yaih
vidyavihinam akulinam asarhstutaiii va
prSyena bhCinipatayah prainadE ]at§,s ca
yah parsvato vasati taih parive^tayanti.
10*
148 Chapter VI: Examples of method of reconstruction
Variants:
b, T prajflavilniiani; N vidyavinodam. Spl asaihskvtaih, SP apanditaih,
H asaihgatarii. d, N, Jn bliavati for vasati of T, SP, 11. Ju yat . . . tat.
Ssaima eva prayejia (SP. and Ma. v. 1. pralivena) nrpali kaiitas ca
sadarab.
Sy Ein Herrscher ehrt nicht den, der strebsam ist, sonderu den, der
iliin besonders nalie steht Haben docli die Weisen gesagt: Die Frau wird
nicht von jedem Herrscher und der Weinstock nicht von jedein Baurn
verherrlicht, sondern nur sofern sie init ilmen in Beruhrung kommen.
Ar must have represented the original Fahlavi, and the Sanskrit,
better than Sy; cf. OSp p. 61 towards bottom: Ca dicen los sabios quo
el que es de la compafiia del rey e de la miiger, que non lo allegan a si
por mayor bondat, mas por que est4 m4s cercano quo otro ; bien asi coino
la vid que se non traba al mayor 4rbol, mas al que m^s acorca le esta.
Comments:
In b vidya- is found in all texts but T and is therefore certainly
original, asaihstutarh is proved original by the agreement of N with T
and Jn (evidently SP and H have varied independently from the IJr-SP
reading). It is instructive to observe the ‘‘Verballhonmng” of the meaning
in Sy; this is however not mainly the fault of the Palilavi, but rather of
the Syriac translator himself, since OSp shows that the Ar was fairly close
to the Sanskrit. In d bliavati is clearly a lect. fac.j independently made
in N and Jn.
I vs 21
Occurs in the same place in T 1. 19, SP I. 22, N 11. 17, Pp, I. 29, Sy
1. 13, Ar, and nearly in the same place in Spl I. 36 (immediately after
preceding vs).
Reconstxmction:
kopaprasadavasttini viciiivantab samipagaJi
Irohanti sanair bhirtya dhunvantam api par thi vain.
Variants:
a, N ^pramada^. b, Spl ye vicinvanti sevakali. SP, N pade-pade for
T, .Pp samipagat c, Spl sanaih pasc^d. d, T dliiirtaiii tarn for dlmn van-
tarn (see my Crit. App.j, SP parthivadrumam, but SP« api pa° as text.
Sy Die den Herrscliern naliestehen, stehen ihnen nicht von Anfang
an nahe. Es hat eine Zeit gegeben, wo sie sich mit eifrigem Strebeu
lieranmacbten. [After this follows in Sy A 10 and vs 14-, found nowhere
else except in certain inferior mss. of SP, and doubtless not original.]
Ar ill sense as Sy.
Comments:
There is no way of telling whether the reading of T, Pn or that of
XJr-SP is original in b. The rest I believe is certain. Gf. p. 109 f.
Reconstruction of Book I vs 21, § 47, vs 22
149
I § 47
T A 16
karatakali
: atha bhavan
kiiii
tatra vaksyati.
damanakali : bhadra.
Tp
karataka aba
: atha bhavan
kiiii
tatra vaksyati.
so ’bravit:
bhadra.
SP 128
karafakab
: atha bliavahs tatra
kiih vaksyati.
so ’bravit.
SPa
karataka aha
: atha bhavan
kiiii vaksyati.
tatra gatva kiih vaksyasi.
tatra gatva kirh vak^yati
damaiiaka aha.
Hp 06. 20 karatako vatlati : atlia
sa alia,
Hm 16. 9 karatako brute : atlia
bliavan. sa alia.
Spl 13, 10 karataka aha : atlia bhavaiis tatra gatvS kirii tavad
vaksyati.'*^^
Pn 9. 11 karataka aha : atha bhavaiis tatra gatva^kiih vak^yati.’^’*'
Not in So or K§.
Sy A 11a KHlg sprach: Niimn an, es sei dir geluiigen, in die Nilhe des
Luwon zi\ kommen. Wenii du daliin gelangt biat, wie kannst du dann
don Ldwen tlberreden, dafi er dich z\i sicli heranzioht und zuin Ver-
trauten macht?
(A lib) Dmng sprach.
Ar in sense as Sy.
‘•^'Here Pn adds prathamain eva. end: tat tavad ncyatam. so ^bravit
(Spl damanaka aha).
Reconstruction:
karataka aha: atha bhavaiis tatra gatva kiih vaksyati. damaml'a aha.
Comments:
karataka is certain, and aha seems fairly certain from Tp, SPa, and Jn.
atha bhavaiis tatra seems certain from T, SP, II, Jn, altho bhavan is
omitted in Hp and transposed in Hm, and tatra is transposed in T and
omitted in SPa.
gatva seems to me sufficiently assured by the agreement of H (well
attested) and Jn. Its omission in T, SP is a much easier assumption
than its addition independently in H and Jn,
kiih vaksyati is abundantly supported. The insertioiis in Jn before and
after these words are obviously secondary.
At the end was either damanaka aha or so ’bravit; it is impossible to
be sure which. T’s bliadra is unsupported and doubtless secondary.
1 TS 22
Occurs ill the same place in T I. 20, SP L 28, Spl I. fiO, Pii I, 46.
Reconstruction:
uttarad uttaraih vikyam uttarad eva jSyato
siivrstigunasaihpannad bijad bijam iva ’param.
150
Chapter VI: Examples of methoil of reconstruction
Variants:
b, Spl vadataih saihprajayate. c, SP ^saihparkad, but SP« text.
The text is certain thru out.
After this ts T, Pn add api ca, which may bo original but of course
is not certain.
I TS 23
Occurs in the same place in T I. 21, SP I. 27, N TL 18, Hp IL 55, Hm
11. B2, Spl L 61, Pn 1. 47, Sy A 11 b. 3, and vs 1. 15, Ar.
Reconstruction;
apayasaihdarsanajaih vipattim upayasaiiidar^najam ca siddhim
medhavino nitivid/ifpraynktaiii purab sphiirantim iva darsayanti.
Variants;
• c, T nitividab pra°; ‘^ddlii® with N, H; SP ^pada° (« °patha°, v. 1. °vidi°),
Jn °gu^a°. SP ^prayuktab.
Sy so, daB es ihm Nutzen bringt und nair keinen Schaden, iind (vs 15)
so zeige ich ihm klar, daB ein Unternehmen, welches verrichtet werden
muB, gut ist, und so lutlt er auch mich filr gut.
Ar closer to the original, see Schulthess note 33.
Comments :
In c, the reading of Ur-SP seems clearly to have been “vidhi® which
is preserved not only in N and H but in slightly corrupt form ^vidi® in
a good old ms. of SPa. It seems much more likely to be correct than
T’s °vidab, which leaves prayuktaih rather in the aix’, besides being an
unnecessary duplication of medliSvino. Jn have the obviously secondary
®gui^a° and give us no help. All we can do is to print °vidhP in italics
(except the syllable vi, supported by T) as being uncertain, but the most
likely guess as to the original.
I § 48
T A 17 na eaham apraptakalaih vaksyami.
bPa 142 na clham apraptakalaiii vaksyami. (SP ed. varies
slightly.)
Hp 67. 15 y nSham apraptavasaraih vaeanaih vaksyilmi (Hm vadisyilmi).
Hm 17. 10 J yatab.
Spl 18. 18 na cSliam apraptakalaih vak^ye.
Pn 7.25*^ param aharii desakalavid api. uktaih ca.
Not in So, Sy, Ar.
*This passage in Pi? occurs not in the same place but somewhat earlier,
before our I vs 20. That it corresponds to our passage is proved by
the fact that it is immediately followed by tho following verse, our I vs. 24.
Reconstruction:
na ca ’ham apraptakalaih vak^iyami.
Comments seem unnecessary; the entire text is certain.
Original and unoriginal agreements
151
Original and unoriginal agreements.— I trust that the preceding
passage will have demonstrated sufficiently the reality of my
goal. I do not see how one who has studied it can doubt that
it represents fairly accurately a piece of the text of the ori-
ginal Paiicatantra, to which all the versions go hack. About
minor details there may he a possibility for differences of
opinion; about the general proposition I can see none.— But I
do not wish to overstate the case; and therefore I shall im-
mediately add that we occasionally find what seem to be de-
finite agreements between two or more unrelated versions,
which nevertheless can not, for one reason or another, be
attributed to the original Pancatantra. Usually, as we have
already seen by a number of instances in the passage just
quoted, these eases concern petty verbal details, such as can
without difficulty be assumed to have been altered indepen-
dently in the same way. But at times — tho not often — we find
more serious identical variations in different versions, which
are nevertheless apparently not connected with each other in
any wslj. These compel us to be cautious, even when we seem
to find definite prima facie proof of the readings of the ori-
ginal. To be sure, such cases are not numerous. I shall append
a few instances here. I do not mean to assert that the list is
complete; hut I think that these cases are typical, and that
they will illustrate the kind of reasons which, in my opinion,
justify us occasionally in denying to the original even impor-
tant and striking agreements in independent versions.
Unoriginal agreements Tbetween H and Pa.— Beconstruction I vs 35 d
reads in Miiller's edition (not in Peterson’s!) of tlie Hitopadesa nupurarfi
Hrasa Iqrtam. All the other Sanskrit versions of this stanza have the com-
parison of “ putting a crest-gem on the foot ” ; but only in Hm is added
the complementary comparison of “ putting a foot-ornament on the head.”
It seems scarcely questionable that this is a secondary alteration. Yet
we find it reappearing in the Pahlavi version of this stanza, at the same
point in the test! (Sy vs 23... Oder den FuCsclimuck an den Kopf...)
The general relations of the texts make it seem certain that the addition
(which is not hard to understand) was made independently in both places.
It may go back to the Sanskrit original of the Pahlavi; but if so, that
proves nothing except that this variant of the stanza was known at that
early date as a floating stanza or gefltlgeltes Wort ”, and that it persisted
in later times and was adopted by the scribe of tho H ms. to which
Muller’s edition goes hack ultimately.
152
Chapter VI : Examples of method of reconstruction
Tlie Palilavi lias at least one verse (Sy I vs 16) which is found in the Hito-
padesa (Hm IL 118, Hp II. 101) and in no other ancient Pailcatantra version.
To be sure, it does not occur at the same point of the text in the two
versions; and this is in itself a sufficient reason for assuming that it was
added independently in H (or its archetype) and the Sanskrit original of Pa.
Unoriginal agreement between H and Jn.— Keconstruction I § 155.
Here the tricky weaver’s wife calls upon the gods to witness to her
chastity. In the Jain versions (Spl vs 182, Pn vs 141) and the Hitopadesa
(Hp vs 100, Hni vs 112; she recites a stanza, known elsewhere, calling
upon the Lokapiilas specifically. The stanza is one which, granting its
familiarity to the several redactors, might very easily have been suggested
by the context; and it occurs nowhere else in the Pafic,, not even in SP or
N, the nearest relatives of H. I feel so certain that it is a secondary intrusion
that I have not included it in my reconstruction, even in parentheses.
Unoriginal agreements between SP and Jn.— I § 172. SP (ed., i. e. (3)
and the Jain versions agree in having the barber’s wife, who had already
lost her nose, further punisht by having her ears cut off. But SPa is
different; and as the variation is found nowhere else, I think it is surely
secondary. It is a natural addition.
After I vs 71, SP ed. (P) has its vs 64, which is found (after a short
prose insertion) also in Pn, but nowhere else, and not even in SPa. It is
similar in meaning to the preceding vs, which is original, and was pro-
bably suggested by that, and inserted independently in SPp and Pn.
One might also mention here the apparent agreement between SP, Jn
and Pa in the sesame-story (II, 2); they all speak of exchanging “ huskt
for unhuskt” sesame, whereas I believe the original was different. See
page 106 ff. above.
Unoriginal agreement between Pn and Ks.— I vs 164 cd. This is
the catch-verse of the story of the Iron-eating Mice (1. 15), The original
read (with all versions but Pn and namely, T, SP, N, Spl ; the variants
are unimportant, see Grit. App.) in cd as follows: gajarh tatra harec
chy^no ddrake ko Hr a vismayah. Pn and Ks read: Syenali kunjaraJi’jrt tatra
kwl citraf^ yadi putrahtt (K^ Mlahft), The extraordinary correspondence
is too close to be accidental; yet the original must have read as indicated
by the other versions. On the other hand there is no sign of secondary
relations between l^n and K?, except as they both used T\ and T here
agi-ees with the other texts. The explanation seems to me to be evidently
this: the stanza was familiar to both Pdrpabhadra and Ksemendra in
the form in wduch they have it as a floating stanza or gefittgeltes Wort,”
and so both of them substituted this version for that which they found
in their archetypes.
Unoriginal agreement between T and SP.— HI % 9, &c. The names
of the crow ministers are, according to T and SP: uddipin, saiiidipin,
ildipin, pradlpin (SP proddipin), and cirajivin (SP ciraihj°). The Jain
versions have ujjivin, sahijivin, anujivin, prajivin, and ciraibjivin (Pn
ciraj®), Somadeva has udcjivin, saihdivin, ilijivin, pradivin, cirajivin. Ks
and Pa have no names.
Unoriginal agreements
153
The forms found in the Jain versions are evidently secondary; in ,ln
the first four names are made over on the model of the fifth, using the
root jiv. We may dismiss them. We have left only T and SP, which
agree practically perfectly, and So, which differs from them. Ordinarily
we^ should not hesitate to say that the agreement of T and SP establishes
the original. But there are special reasons in this case which bid us pause.
Ih'actically all the names of actors found in the entire Pailcatantra are
“ nomina-omina ” ; they are somehow or other significant of the character
or fortunes of the persons who bear them. (Apparent exceptions such as
Karataka in Book I may be due to our ignorance of tbe real meaning
of the words.) This is very particularly true of the actors in Book III
(the crow-king Cloud-color, the owl-king Foe-crusher ^c.), and notably
of the five owl-ministers who form the complement to these five crow-
ministers, and who are named Ked-eye, Gruel-eye, Flame-eye, Crooked-
nose, and Wall-ear (III § 149, &c.). The fifth of the crow-ministers, Cira(iii)-
jivin, “ Long-lived,” has a good crow-name (crows are proverbially long-
lived). It seems to me hardly credible that the other four names should
not have been somehow significant.
But what do these four names mean according to T and SP? They
all appear to be formed with the root dtp^ and so mean apparently
something like ‘‘Upflamiug, Hither-fiaming ” &c. This seems most in-
appropriate to crows. What possible application could it have, either to
crows in general (cf, “Long-lived”), or to these crows in particular? If
it be suggested that it alludes to the fact that the crows in this story
ultimately destroyed the owls’ home by burning, the reply is that the
crow who was solely responsible for this plan was the fifth crow-minister,
whose name in all versions is Cira(iii) jivin— the only name which does
not contain the root dtp ! The other four ministers are not even referred
to in that connexion. Nor can the root dip in these words reasonably be
understood in the figurative sense of “ illuminating (intellectually) these
four ministers were exactly the opposite of “ brilliant ” in intellect. Their
only role in the story is to serve as foils to the wise Cira(rii)jivin; after
their fruitless maunderings have been overruled by his canny advice,
they drop out of the story, to appear no more. Certainly the author would
not have complimented them by giving them names that suggest a connexion
with the burning-out of the owls, or that suggest intellectual brilliancy.
In view of all this it seems to me highly probable, if not exactly
certain, that the true form of their names is preserved in Somadeva
alone. The forms u(}-4i*vin &c. are compounds of the root to fiy, with
various prefixes, and with the suffix -riw. They mean, then, “Up-soarer ” i&c.
These names are entirely appropriate. Evidently they were mangled by
T and SP—presumably independently, since this is the only case of a
serious agreement between T and SP that 1 have discovered, which
cannot reasonably be attributed to the oxdginal Paficatantra. The com-
j)arative raidty and quasi- Prakri tic nature of forms of the root would
account for the corruption in T and SP, on the ])rinciple of the lectio
facilior.
CHAPTER VII
EXAMPLES OP METHOD OF RECONSTRUCTION, CON-
TINUED : ESTABLISHMENT OF ORIGINAL^BY AJJREE-
MENTS OP OTHER TEXTS THAN TANTRAKHYAYIKA
Purpose of tMs chapter. — In the passage quoted at lengtli in
the preceding chapter (I § 34 &c.), most of the versions agree
pretty closely with each other. It seems desirable to give
examples of passages in which the general agreement is less
close, but in which it is nevertheless possible, in my opinion,
to determine at least the general sense of the original, on the
basis of a smaller number of versions. Passages occur in which
the original is, I think, determined by a combination of evi-
dence from every two or more independent versions that
could possibly be selected; even after making due allowance
for the possibility of chance coincidence in secondary varia-
tions, as illustrated at the end of the last chapter, I think
that this can hardly be doubted as a general proposition,
however doubtful some of the individual cases may be.
In this chapter I shall quote examples (some two hundred in
all) of all these combinations, except combinations of evidence
from the TantrakhyUyika and other versions. My reason for
this omission is two-fold. In the first place, agreements between
the Tantrakhyayika and all other versions, individually and
collectively, are particularly common and particularly easy to
locate. Anyone who wishes to do so can easily get plenty of
examples. The Tantrakhyayika is, as stated above, on the lohole
the best representative of the original. But it is not the ori-
ginal, even after its numerous secondary expansions have been
deducted from it. It contains also omissions and substitutions
aplenty. And this introduces my second reason for presenting
this collection of agreements, which establish the original in
every case ivithout the aid of the Tantrdkhyayika. I collect
here more than two hundred cases in which I think Tantm-
Purpose of this Oliapter
155
khyayika is shown by the agreement of other versions to be
secondary. Not every case is certain; when I myself feel
particularly doubtful, I shall say so. Perhaps I may exaggerate
the certainty of some cases. But granted that some of these
agreements in other versions than T may be accidental and
secondary; it does not seem likely that all of them can be.
Indeed, in quite a number of cases here listed there are (as
will be noted) special reasons for believing that the T version
is secondary — aside from the agreement of the others. Nor
is my list complete; it could without doubt be considerably
extended.
Collectively, therefore, the following pages constitute an
argument — and one of the strongest arguments — against the
exclusive authority of the TantrdJcliyayika. It seems to me
worth while to present this collection of unoriginal features of
the T, because of the seriously distorted view of the facts
which has been given wide publicity by the writings of Pro-
fessor Plertcl. This collection is to be understood as a supple-
ment, on the positive side, to my attempt above (p. 101 ff.) to
refute Hertel’s assumption of the archetype K,’’ — which im-
plies the unique * position of T (more especially Ta) among
Pancatantra versions. In spite of all liis reservations, Hertel
still seems unwilling to give due weight to versions outside
of the Tantrakhyayika.^
^ For instance, he says WZKM. 25. 4 ; “ FQr die Prosa von K [his ima-
ginary secondary archetype of all the versions except T] kdnnen wir fast
nur auf den Pahlavi-Rezensionen fufien. Sie ist in Iceinem der Samknltexte,
die auf K zurUckgehm, aucli nur einigei'mafen wortlich erhaUen. Im SP ist
sie stark gekiirzt und die Hss. gehen ihrerseits stark anseinander ; im sog,
textus simplicior ist sie bis auf geringe Reste umgearbeitet und stark er-
weitert.” Now the sentence which I here italicize is a wild exaggeration,
as I think has been sufficiently illustrated by the passage I § 34 ff., quoted
above, p. 130 ff. It is simply false to say that in SP the original text is
not “ auch nur einigermafien wSrtlich erhalten.'’ If the mss, of SP differ
greatly, that does not mean anything about the original SP archetype,
which can usually be determined quite easily by comparing the several SF
subrecensions with the outside versions ; and it is clear that that archetype
preserved the vast majority of both prose and verses of the original, and
preserved it on the whole as literally as T, perhaps. It is equally Mse to
say that the original text is lost or workt over in Simplicior “ bis auf
geringe Reste.” It is true that Spl preserves the original probably less well
156 Chapter VII; Kxamples of method of reconsirnction, continued
The aim of this chapter is, then, two-fold: first, to illustrate
the methods of my reconstruction in less, and even in the
least favorable circumstances (whereas its workings in the
most favorable circumstances have been illustrated above,
p, 130 ff.); and secondly, to give a large number of instances
in wdiich I think there is good reason to believe that the
Tantrakhyayika is secondary.
It will be understood, then, that agreements noted in the
following pages can be attributed, in my opinion, to the ori-
ginal Paixeatantra, with virtual certainty or at least with a
high degree of probability. In a few cases only have I more
serious doubts; these will be specifically indicated. — It will he
noted tliat tlie agreements vary greatly in importance, from
single words up to entire sentences or verses. As stated above,
I regard the agreements which concern longer passages as
much more conclusive evidence for the original than those
which concern individual words or phrases, because it is much
easier to suppose tliat the latter are accidental. — Considerations
of space make it necessary for me to be brief in my treat-
ment of the passages here. Full details of the readings of all
versions will be found in my Critical Apparatus.
Agreements of Ur-SP, Br, Jn, and. Pa, against I vss 73 and
74 are found completely in SP, N, In T are found only fiie first
Imlf of 73 and the second half of 74, joined together as one verse. Both
Bo and Pa have clear traces of tlie parts omitted in T.
(2) Between II § 50 and § 51 we find in T a block of text which has
been transposed from a later place. It includes II vs 13, § 54, vs 14,
§§ 55 and 56. All other texts (namely SP, N, Jn, So, Pa) join § 51 directly
to § 50 and locate the block beginning with II vs 13 at a later place,
as in my reconstruction.
(3) In I § 518, after Du^t^^buddhi has accused Dharmabuddhi of steal-
ing the money, the latter denies the theft and returns the accusation,
in SP, So, Jn, and Pa (Ar and descendants; not in Sy). T has nothing
of this; but T inconsistently proceeds in the next sentence with evan’i
parasparcwaHikayd vimdamdnau etc,, implying the original existence of
Dharjnabuddhi’s accusation, which has therefore dropt out in T (per-
than any other version we have. But it nevertheless contains a very con-
siderable amount of it, and at times gives us valuable evidence as to the
original, being more original even than T in not a few cases. It is noi
ein ganz neues Werk ” (I, r., same page) ; the word ** ganz ” gives an
entirely ernmeous impression.
Agroemeiits of Ur-SP, Br, Jn, and Pa, against T 157
liajiB by a kind of haplograpliy, since the words used by Dli, seem to
have been nearly the same as those used by Du.)
(4) III § 41. Here, at the assembly of the l)irdH which was chooBing
a king, the crow appears and opposes the choice of the owl. All ver-
sions (SP, So, K?, Jn, Pa) except T state that it was a crow; T has
here avijriatanamdnam pak^iy^anij and we do not learn that the bird was
a crow until near the end of the long story, T ed. p. 124, 1. 4 (our § 108),
where however the fact is mentioned casually in T, in a way which
seems to suggest a previous statement.
(5) I § 426. The definite statement of the departure of Anagatavidhat^
is found in SP, H, So, Ks, Jn, Pa (not quite in the same place in li
and So). T has nothing except the phrase apaydte 'iidgatavidlidtari in
§ 426, which of course implies the fact, and might pass as a sufficient
statement of it, were it not that the agreement of the other versions
indicates that the original 'was more definite.
(6) I § 243. In all versions (SP, H, So, Ks, Jn, Pa) except T the lion’s
consent to the bargain i)roposed ])y the other animals is definitely sbited,
and in all but Jn (which are expanded) in much the same language.
In T we find only the words tathd Icfte (P sthiU\ which leave this point
to be understood by implication.
(7) I §§ 443 and 444, describing the approach of the birds to Gariida
and their complaint to him about the injury done by the sea to the
strandbirds. The general sense seems supported by Hm, So, Spl, Pn, Sy
and Ar (a brief illusion also in K?), While the texts are not close to
each other in most of the language contained here, it seems to me that
the correspondence of meaning is close enuf to make it at least highly
probable that the original had something of the sort, tho it is entirely
omitted in T, SP, and lip (Hm alone retaining — hut with some traces
of the language of the others !— the original which apparently must have
been in Ur-SP).
(8) I § 366, end. The lion, speaking of the assurances he had given
to the camel, says— in Jn, tat Icathani (Pp adds smyam eva) vydpddaydmi\
in SP, tat hatharh druliyate (a hei*e inferior); in So, katharfi hanmXty\ in
Sy (after the following verse, that is, slightly transposed), Ich habe cs
eingeladen und werde es nicbt dem Tode fib erantworten.— Nothing like
this in T.
(9) I § 434. In Pa, Spl, Pn,. So, and Hm (cf. No. 7 above, in which
Hm also has a feature in common wdth the other versions, which is not
in Hp or SP), occurs the equivalent in sens© of the word mjatapUroa-
taddldpena (the sea, ‘Slaving heard what the strandbird said,” &c.).
It is lacking in T, SP, and Hp, tho of course implied in them by the
story.
(10) I § 590, After killing Saitijivaka, the lion sits aimolcartal} mi^n^
imasya (SP) ; cf. H mrdntah sahla, K§ anutdpdrtalh Spl tadgw^mna-
ramrdrcdifdayah^ Pi? prasdntakopO'-smf'tapUrpomiehavmdt harm^a^d Idr
^pardre nayane pramfjya sapaicdmpam ; Sy Aber kaum hatte er sich
von seinem Zorne erholt, da inachte er sich Skrnpein;— Und er empfand
158 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstnictioii, continued
Keue und saB trtiben Sinnes da. Similarly Ar.—Of this description T
has nothing, except as it may be considered implied in the sjieech of
the lion which follows, or in the words asTgdigdham pdriim ptramrjya-
(11) III § 48. The appeal of the thirsty elephants to their king is
practically omitted in T, which reads only paritrdydsmdn vdritaiya'^e-
neU\ note particularly that it has no cori'espondeiit to the idea exprest
by H mftdrhd iva, Ks mna^ eva, Spl mfiaprayd, Pn mTtdvastJidhj Sy
daB wir nicht vor Burst sterben, Ar JCap in hoc vivere non possumus
(the same sense also in BP). By way of compensation T inserts a reply
by the elephant-king to his followers, which is found in no other version
and is doubtless secondary.
(12) III § 257. By way of indicating that the crows burned the home
of the owls, T has simply asdu cirajm yat kftavdn, tad thavatam and-
khydtaifi, viditam eva. All others (SP, So, Ks, Jn, Pa) have the definite
statement of the burning.
(13) III § 182 is omitted in T, which fails to give the thief’s reason
for objecting to the ogre’s seizing the brahman first, before he had
stolen the cattle. This reason is given in substantially identical terms
in SP, So, P^, and Pa. In So and Pa, to be sure, it is put with § 180,
where the thief first states his intention. This simply means that So and
Pa have combined § 180 and § 182— -a very natural procedure, the like
of which hapj)ens constantly, and which need imply no interdependence.
T, on th§ other hand, has omitted § 182 by a kind of haplology (since
it contained a speech by the thief which w^as in part very similar to
the one found in § 180). SP and Pn have preserved the original very
accurately.
(14) II § 78 end. The phrase mamdptha nirmdo ^sU or close equivalent
is fonnd in SP, (H, less close,) So, Spl, P^, and Pa, but omitted in T,
altko in the crow’s reply, immediately following, T reads Mm hlmmto
^pi nirvedafcdra^m.
(15) n §§ 121— 123, see below, p. 177.
(16) II § 198. SP, Spl, Pp., So, Ks, and Pa contain the statement that
the crpw informed the others of the deer’s misfortune. T briefly, idval
laghupatamkma k^ipram em Mra^ya dnitali (the last corresponds to § 200).
(17) II § 229. T mentions only the mouse as escaping. All the others
(SP, Jn, So, Ks, Pa) speak of all three, Jn and Pa making specific mention
of mouse, crow, and deer, which is clearly original. This is a case in
which T is most obviously secondary; of coarse all the companions but
the tortoise must have escaped.
(18) I § 290. Of the louse that lived in the bed of a king, the original
says (according to my reconstruction); $d ca tasya malupate raktam asva-
dayanil sukhena cirath Tcdlarh nayamdnd So Spl, excej^t that it
omits cirajh. Pp has a passage similar in sense tho verbally different;
Sy also “ die biB den Mann, W'enn er schlief, bebutsam, daB er es nicht
merkte, und w'ohiite da lange Zeit, ohno daB jemand sie fing”; so also
Ar, More briefiy So, dram astd aldkdtd. SP contains the w^ord hahukalani
(a cira^kP) in the preceding passage. T has nothing of all this.
Agreements of IJr-SP, Br, Jn, and Pa, against T 159
(19) III § 6. In speaking of the owls’ attack on the crows: SP and
Spl rdtrdv dgatya, So rdtrdv . . . etya, nisi. By nachtlicherweilej Ar one
night. T and Pii omit the phrase.
(20) V § 39 end. SP, II, So, K§, Jn, and l^a all agree in having a
phrase to this eifeet: {Jcrpj!;a)sarparfi ca (samipe) hha7:idlJcrtam Only
T lacks anything of the sort.
(21) I § 211. The heron takes the fish which he intends to eat, and —
SP Uldpr^lie pdtayitvd: So sildtale mnyasya\ Spl natidure silm% samdsadya
tasydm dlc^ipya\ Pn mlatalasydiJcadesopan*^ Sy auf einem naheii Hiigeh
Nothing of the sort in T or H. But that the original must have had it is
indicated (aside from the agreement of the others) also by T’s version
of § 215, where the heron, carrying the crab, tapiasildydm availmaJi,
(22) I § 562. SP Jc^navibhavo va^bilcputraly^ Jn jirypadliano (Pn ndduko)
llama myi%kputrali\ So Uildk^aJi pitryartlidt , . . Sy ein armer
Kaufmann; but T lcfLp,ahdndhavo (mistake for %ihhavo!) m'liikmtaJi.
(23) I § 525. When Diistabiiddhi says that the ti^ee will bear witness
for him, the judges exi)ress astonishment, and then add, in all versions
(SP, So, Ks, Jn, Pa) except T, that they will take the tree’s testimony
on the next day. T entirely omits this last.
(24) I § 242. The beasts, making their offer to the lion, promise him
one victim each day for your food ”. Tlie two words pratyoJmTfi and
dhdrdrtham are found literatim in SP, II, and Pn; Spl has pratidinam,
hhak$drtliam; So dine-dine^ dhdraya] less exactly, sadd, mdJcsayam or
]c^aye\ Sy jeden Tag (omitting the other word, but cf. Ar); Ar, JCaj)
Omni die, pro tuo cibo. It seems clear that both of these words (or very
close equivalents) Avere in the original. T has neither.
(25) 1 § 239. The beasts Avho are being destroyed by the lion “ come
together ” and address him. The word militvd is found literatim in SP,
H, and both Jn versions; So has saMliuya^ Ks sametya\ Sy nothing, hut
Ar seems to point to an equivalent (JCap habito consilio inter se). Only
T, therefore, omits the AAmrd.
(26 and 27) I §§ 90 and 91. Damanaka asks permission of Pingalaka
to go and investigate the strange noise. The lion grants him permission
specifically in Jn, So, Pa (Ar; Sy has lacuna here); not in SP ed., but
one fit ms. has bhadra sukhena gaccha. Nothing in T. The text reads much
more smoothly Avith some such phrase included, tho it is not absolutely
necessary to the sense.— The same applies to § 91, containing the definite
statement that D. took leave of P, and went; so Jn, So, Pa; not in
T; represented in SP by the single word gatm.
Agreements of Ur-SP, Jn, and Pa.— (1) I § 98 (in which Damanaka
returns to Pingalaka after investigating the noise made by the bull)
contains in Jn the words damanaka ’pi pmgalakasakdsam dgaiya (Spl
gatm) pra7^amyopam§tali. The originality of this seems supported by SP
[damanaka] dgatya pMgalakatfi pra7j,ainyopavi^h\ cf. H praKiamyopmi^u
(both Karataka and Danaanaka come in H); and Ar Als Dmng vor den
L6wen trat (lacuna in Sy). T omits all this.
160 Chapter VIl: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued
(2) I § 99, immediately after the preceding. SP, II, Jn, and Pa agree
in making Pingalaka open the conversation by asking Damanaka whether
he has seen the creature who made the noise (or, in Ar, “Was hast du
aiisgerichtet V ”). This is dramatically better than T, which omits any
such question and lets Damanaka open the conversation. The verl)al
agreement between SP, H, and Jn is very close (Jn hiin df^tani hhamtd
tat sattmm ; SP df^am liim tvaya ; II tvayd sa dp^faJi, or dr^li sah^
omitting tvayd). To be sure, SPa omits the phrase, as does T ; but then,
BPa also omits Damaiiaka’s reply, which is found in T and is clearly
original. In short, SPa is in this place obviously secondary, and Sr|3
more original.
(3) I § 142. See below, j). 178. Note that T makes no mention of the
weaver’s beating his wdfe, which all other versions have (SP, H, Jn, Pa;
the whole story is omitted in Br), and which no good husband would
have failed to do under the circumstances. T is badly confused at this
point.
(4) I § 207. The lying tale of the crafty heron, told to the crab, is
repeated by him to the fishes, according to SP, Spl, Sy, and Ar. In tlie
others we must assume that the fishes overheard it, which is quite pos-
sible a priori ; but the agreement is probably original.
(5) I § 224. In T the jackal advises the crows to get a suvar^asriiram
simply, not specifying an owner. The others are fuller. SP Jeasyacid
dhanikasya (gr^idt), SPa rdjamahi^yds, Jn Icasydpi dhanino (Spl adds
rcljamdtyddeh prarnddinali)'., H more lengthy, the kanahasutm is to be
taken from a rajaputra ; Sy simply Lenten (einen Gegenstand zu ent-
ftihren), but Ar Wolff von dem Schmuck eines Weibes, and so JCap,
KP. The yersions of SPo, H, and Ar seem to be due to anticipations of
§ 228. The original doubtless said simply “from a rich man,” tko it may
possibly have added something like “a king or the like.”
(6) I § 306. The servants of the king who has been bitten by the flea
“bring a light” to look for it in SP (dlpikdm Mdya), Pn (dipikdrfi
grhitvd), and Ar (JCap candela aecensa). This seems likely to be original.
(7) I § 316, see p. 167 below.
(8) I § 875. In T (and By) the speech of the crow is reduced to the
bare offer of Ms body to the lion. In SP and 11 he first says: “Wo
have not been able to find food, and Your Majesty is weakened by long
fasting.” This is dramatically a better opening, and is supported by Jn
and Pa (Pa lacks the equivalent of dMro na prdptali).
(9) I § 454. Damanaka’s description of how the lion will behave when
he sees Sarhjivaka contains tmtsarhmMam llmmdms, or words to that
eflect, in H, Jn, and Pa; not in T or SP.
(10) I § 506. Du^tahuddlii is proposing that the treasure-trove be not
divided at once, but that each should take only a part of it for the
present. In T he does not say what is to be done with the rest. So and
are too much abbreviated to show an}d:hing; but SP has ihdiva
VTk^amule (a omits rr°) nUc^ipya; Spl airdiva mnagahane kvdpi hhUmdu
nik^ipya\ Pn (otherwise mainly with T) bhumdu nik^ipya^^ and Ar (Sy has
Ajjreemeiits of Ur-SP, Jii, and Pn
161
a huiiuia here) we will bury the rest in a safe place. Since thi& is just
what they proceed to do, it is a 'priori probable that siig-
gest(‘d itj as represented in the non-T vei'sions.
(11) I § 507. Just after the preceding. No reply is quoted from
Dliaxunabuddlii to Dustabuddhi’s proposal in T, Br. SI* has tenoJctam:
ijatlidha hliavdn. Similarly Jn, Ar Said the thotless man: Agreed. (La-
cuna in Sy.)
(12) 1 § 529. Dustabuddhi has just told his father that it is “ up to
him” to save the money. SP continues: pitaha^ him atra karyam. So Sy:
Seiii Vater sprach zu ihm, Und ich, was soil ich tun? Ar similarly. So
also Spl, more fully. No reply of the father is mentioned in T, Pn, By.
(13) I § 54:1. The crabj after advising the herons to strew fish from
the mongoose’s hole to the snake’s, explains here that the mongoose will
come out and eat the fish and so come to the snake’s hole and kill it
So, in <piite similar terms, H, Jn, and Pa. SP omits all, and T has very
briefly : tatas ta evdinamdghdtayi^yaniL
(14) II §4 end. Here occurs a clause which seems to be found cor-
respondingly ill H, Jn, and Pa; but the correspondence is far from
perfect and the originality of the clause is therefore uncertain. See
Grit. App.
(15) II vs 15 c. SP, N, PI, Jn, Pa sutaptam ; T ataptam. See p. 105 f.
(16) n § 149. The original may not have been so long as in my re-
construction (which follows Jn) ; hut SP, H, and Pa prove clearly that
something of the sort was here. See Grit. App. T is very confused in
its arrangement of the entire passage in which this occurs.
(17) II vs 43 b. SP, N, H, Pn varani kldibyaifi pufi^sdni na ca para-
kalatrdhhigamanam. T mptyuli sldgliyo for kldihyain pm\sdm. Pa with the
non-P^ versions (Sy besser ein Kastrat als eiii Ehebrecher). This is ob-
viously the proper reading ; even Hertel can hardly deny, I should think,
that T is here secondary,
(18) II vs 48 is found in SP, N, H, Spl, Pn and Pa (Ar), but not in T.
(19) Order of 11 vss 70—72 and § 174. These three verses and one
prose section contain all that is original of more than two pages of "Fs
text (firom A 177 to A 182, including vss 126—142 of T). In T this long
passage comes after the speech of the crow (our § 176, and vss 73 — 77)*
T thus divides the speech of tho tortoise in two, separating the two
parts of it by the speech of the crow. This is supei’ficially indicated in
T itself by the obvious way in which T A 182 duplicates A 176 ; tlie
tortoise has to conclude his speech twice, and does it with almost the
same words. It seems evident to me that the other versions are original
in putting these vss and this § with the rest of the speech of the tor-
toise. Hertel’s statements of correspondences in his Table (Tantr* Einl.
p. 100 ff.) are erroneous for this passage.
(20) II § 175. T hiraT^yo, for laghupatanako of SP, H, Jn, and Pa**-*
which latter is required by the sense. Hertel assumes a lacuna, in
which the mouse said something or other, and then the crow’s Speech
was introduced. But this is most unlikely. No other version represents
Edgerton, Pa-ncatantm. II. 11
162 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued
the mouse as saying anything. T has simply made a careless slip, say-
ing the mouse when it means (or should mean) the crow. Other cases of
the sort occur elsewhere (e. g. in our II § 190 H says liirayiyako by mis-
take for mantharako, and in our II § 224 Pa says the deer by mistake
for the mouse).
(21—24) II vss 75, 77, 88, and 89. These four verses are found in SP,
N, H, P^, and Pa, but not in T.
(25) III § 64. Here, where the bare first speaks to the elephant-king,
he would naturally declare at once that he is sent by the moon as a
messenger. He does so in all the versions (SP, H, Jn, So, Ks, Pa) except
T, where he says he is a messenger, but does not say by whom he is
sent until later (§ 65). — So and Ks run together §§ 64 and 65, so that
they cannot be counted as evidence against T’s version. ^
(26) III vs 44 and preceding prose. See above, p. lllfP.
(27) III § 226. The ascetic says to Ms wife, of the girl who has been
changed from a mouse : Pi?, tarn diMtot^anna ; SP tdm svagar-
hhajdWm iva ; Sy wie deine Tochter, und liehe es wie ein eigenes ; so
Ar. T contains no such suggestion or comparison ; altho in the sequel
the ascetic speaks of her as being in place of a daughter to him.
(28) III vs 80, see below, p. 167,
(29) III vs 86 a. SP, N, Pn Ihftyahj T mitrah ; Pa supports hhrtyali
(Sy ein Diener und BeisaB).
(30) III vs 91 b. SP, N, IM dharmah ; T hJi^tydh. Pa (Ar ; not in Sy)
seems to support dharmal} (JCap [mala] doctrina, OSp el [mal] eusefiado).
(31) III vs 99. See above, p. 85 f.
(32) Y § 26, The statement that the contents of the broken pot cover-
ed the brahman himself is clearly needed, as is proved by the catch-
verse, V vs 2, c, pWi$4ura3% iete. Nevertheless T omits it, or at least
hardly mak^ it plain by its tctsyiUvopari kaiakapdlo ^yamddhasaldMr
Contrast SP Jn (Pi? adds
m) gakil}^ Sy und der Honig und das 01 ergoO sich auf
seinen Kopf &c. It seems clear, at least, that the other versions are more
closely in accord with the catch-verse than T.
Agreements of Ur-SP, Jn, and So or (1) I § 253. After the
lion has askt the hare to show him tlie alleged second lion, the hare re-
plies, in SP : sa aha, tmritam dgaecha smmin (a ^ehatu svdmi) tarn darsaya-
mltL Likewise Jn : kdaka aha, yady evark tarhy (Pi? tad) dgacchatu svdmi.
Also So : dgatya df^atckk deveby uHm, Not in T, Pa, H, K§.
(2) I § 362 end. The lion’s retainers start out to look for food, at his
request. Before § 358, in which the crow, jackal, and panther take coun-
sel together without the camel, occurs in SP, Jn, and So the following;
BP na Urfhcit prdptam ; Jn ydmn na kifkcit sattvani (Pi? tr, sattvaifi
cln na) pa^yawti ; So {a)navdpya tat In the other versions, including T,
this is not stated,
(3) I § 391. The female strandhird is described as dsannaprasava,
literatim, in SP, H, K?, Bpl, and (praty-d/^) Pi?. T has the synonym
praso^yamdi}ayd ; So dhftagarhhd. Here T is secondary in exact language
Agreements of Ur-SP, Jii, mid So or K.s
163
(guaranteed hj agreement of SP, H, Jn, and K.s), tlio it has a word of
the Hume meaning.
(4) I § 491. The ape is “ angered ” by the officious bird ; 'hu2nt{en)af
Sl\ Spl; cf. So culcopaf hharisayan. Not in T, Pn, Pa.
(6) III § 5. The original name of the owl-king was clearly Arl-
mardana, ‘‘Foe-crusher*,” so SP, Jn *, Ks has the synonym ripumardu'^
So avamarda ; T apamarda, but the mss. readings, see llertel ad loc.,
ed. p. 108, 11. to 1. 7, seem to me to point to an original satnmarda (Ta
mtrumardundma \ Tp \ta8ya ca] iatrur apamardo ndma &c.), which like
K^’s form would be a synonym of anmarda(na).
(6) III §§ 98 and 100. The name of the hypocritical cat was clearly
UadJdJcarTia in the original, as shown by SP«, Pn, and K§, which agree
on this form. It means “ Curd-ear ” and is otherwise known as a cat’s
name. SP ed. (|3) has secondarily dirghavdla, “Long-tail;” Spl
dai^^raj an ominous name suggested by what this cat did to the part-
ridge and hare ; T udadhikarT^a^ “ Ocean-ear,” which of course makes no
sense and is an evident corruption for dadhiJcaiipa.
(7) III §§ 165 and 166, order. These two sections are put after Story 6
in SP, Pn, Br ; they evidently belong there. Pa omits them. In T (p ;
a omits Story 6) they are put before Story 6. This is responsible for the
awkwardness which Hertel finds in the introduction to this story, and
which leads him to the erroneous conclusion that the story itself is a
secondary insertion. See p. 63, note 6.
Agreements of Ur-SP, Pa, and So or Ks, against T (and Jn), —
(1) I §§ 18—22 and vss 4, 5 ; order. See above, p. 80 fF. The order of
T, followed by Pn and apparently by Spl so far as it preserves the
passage, is clearly secondary.
(2) 1 § 20. See p. 84.
(3) I § 30. See p. 84 f.
(4) I § 103. In the preceding section Damanaka has offered to bring
Sanijivaka into the lion’s presence. The lion now replies, in SP, So,
and Pa, telling him to do so. In T, Pn this speech is omitted, leaving
a gap in the story, which Spl undertook to fill in by an obviously
secondary speech of the lion ; its contents are quite diffferent from the
others. Evidently the Ur-T left out the lion’s speech.
(5) I § 264. The hare shows the lion the well, where the other lion
was alleged to be, and says : SP tatra pasya ; H atrdgatya (Hm tatrdP)
pasyatu svdml] So ihdntas tarh (DP. {hdntcd^tha^h) sthUarh pa^a ; Sy Hier
igt er.— In T, K§ we are not told that the hare said anything.
(6) I § 311? (Doubtful case as far as SP is concerned; see p. 174.)
(7) I § 507. Du^tabuddhi and Dbarmabuddhi bury tbe dinars which
the latter has found vrUamUh, SP, So ; an der Wurzel eines Baumes,
Sy (and Ar likewise). T only Jcutradt ; Pn, Ks only hhUmau (So also has
hhUtale)] but in tbe sequel we find that they really were at the foot of a tree,
(8) I % 564. That the money was given back to Dbarmabuddhi, after
tbe true facts of the ease had been discovered, is stated only in SP, So,
and Pa, not in T, Jn, Ks.
164 Chapter VII; Examples of methofi of reconstruction, continued
(9) III § 26. In the long speech of the wise crow-minister Cira(nip
jivin to the crow-king occurs a phrase which seems to me cpiite clearly
to correspond in SP, So, and Pa, and for which I find no equivalent in
T (tho the order of most of the versions is pretty badly confused at
this point and it is not easy to be absolutely sure about correspondences).
SP reads tad emm punar 'bravlmi: yuddham na sreya iti, samdJdr apy
a&ahyo 'rtlialp sahajavdirdnuhandhdnam. So Icah samdhir data eva 'kali,
vdirarh Icdkandm uluMis tatra Tco vrajei. Pa, Sy Ilnd nun, wo dn mein
Gutachten gefordert hast, ist es, um es dffentlieh zii sagen, dieses : Wie ich
nicht den Krieg wiinsche, ebensowenig wiinsche ich, da£ wir die Zah-
lung eines Tributes auf uns iielimen uiid uns demiitigeu. (Ar similarly.)
— ^The Jn versions of course could not have this passage, since they
have wholly altered the first part of Book III ; and in the greatly ab-
breviated Ks we should not expect to find it. Of the versions where
it would be reasonable to expect this passage, therefore, it is lacking
only in T.
(10) ITI § 54. See p.86f.
(11) III §§ 71 and 72. See p. 87.
(12) III § 122. The rogues, seeing the brahman carrying the goat, say
to themselves, according to SP; (t&is dntitamX hralimat^o 'yam chdgam tyd-
jyutdm, Cf. So dhurtdis clidgam jihlr^uWiily^ Ar, JCap— consilium ut ipsum
sibi aufferrent. Nothing is said about their proposing to eat the goat ex-
cept in T and Jn. To be sure, they naturally did eat the goat when
they got it; so it is possible that the original definitely mentioned this
as their purpose. But I think the agreement of the non-T versions is an
indication that the contrary is more likely.
(13) V § 41. The wife of the hasty brahman com^ home and finds him,
and— as SP mj^—vydpdditafh nalmla/rh iatadM (so «) swipam
ca asks him for an explanation (SF Mm idem iii\ T similarly).
In Bo and Fa the reference to the dead mongoose and snake (only the
mongoose, So) is put into the speech of the wife (So, mkulali Mrfi hatas
i?i>ayd^ ity By, und was bedeutet das, dail das Wiesei und die Schlaiige
getdtet sind?-— likewise Ar). This may have been the way the original
read. At any rate SP, So, and l^a seem to indicate that the original had
some reference to the snake and the mongoose, or at least to the mon-
goose; T has none, llie Jn versions are quite independent of the others
at this point
Agreements of Pa, Jn, and So or Ks.— (1) 1 §16. mndilymimir',
So ian(lil}\ not in other Skt versions, but Sy gemichlich, JCap pauiisper,
KP little by little.
(2) 1 § 116 end. After the lion’s speech of welcome, Saihjivaka replies
in Pn: yathd dem djHdpayati, So has tatheH; and Sy says Snzbpg dankte
ihm. The other versions do not represent Sarhjivaka as saying anything.
But this might not impossibly be an independent addition in the three
versions.
(3) I § 196 end. The jackal, speaking to the two crows whoso young
have been eaten by the serpent, says in Spl: ndtra maye vi^ddali karyaJy
Agreementfl of Pa, Jn, and So or K?
165
nunmii sa luhdho nopdyam aniarem vadliyali syut T'n similarly. Ki? samm-
rasilii sarpo 'yam vinak^yati. Sy suclie vielmelir Mittel uiidWege (=updya),
die Sclilange zu toten, oline dicli selbst zngniiide zu ricliteii.
(4) 1 § 256. Jn, So, and Ar say that after compassing the lion’s death
the hare returned and told the story to the other animals. This is omitted
in the other versions, even in Sy; they end with the lion’s death.
(5) I § 373. In Jn, So, and Pa the crow, si)eaking to his fellow-con-
spirators, develops his ])lan for compassing the camel’s death in similar
terms. It is omitted altogether in SP and merely hinted at in T. Pa and
So are ])articularly close to each other, and the original may have been
more like Pa than like Jn, which I have perforce ado])ted in the recon-
struction, since it is the only prose Sanskrit version available.
(6) I § 432. This section, in which the male strandbird reassures his consort
after she has exjirest her fears in the form of two stories, is found only in
Pn, So, and Pa; its originality is not certain but seems to me highly i)robable.
(7) 1 ^ 436. The female strandbird alludes to the fact that she had
predicted the disaster, in So yan mayolctam ahhut tava^ Spl kathitam dsin
mayd te, Pn uktas tvam asaljn mayCi, Sy ITabe ich es doch komnien sehen
und bei Zeiteii zu dir gesagt, Ar similarly. No such phrase in T, SP, H,
(8) I § 513. Dustabuddhi motivates his desire for money by saying,
So asti me vyayali, Spl bahulcuiumhd myarii mttdhhmdt Bldlimah^ Sy Ich
brauche bares Geld zum Verausgaben, Ar similarly. Others omit this.
(9) 11 § 103. The ascetic tells his guest that he was making a noise
only to scare away the mouse (of which he has spoken in the preceding
section); so distinctly Jn, So, K^, and in Pa mingled with the preceding;
in T, SP, H only implied.
(10) 11 § 199.^ Only Spl, Ks, and Pa specifically mention the fact that
the crow calls u])on the mouse to free the deer. Of course this is implied
in the others; and the definite statement may be an independent expansion
in the three versions.
(11) III § lOL Neither T nor SP quotes any words as spoken hy the
hare and the partridge to the cat in asking him to be their judge. Jn
represent them as saying: bhos tapasvin dharmadesalca, mayor vimdo mr^
tate, tad dhamnaid8tradvdre7j>&smd^afh (Pij Hd8tre$dmyor) nir^yarh deJii.
So ndu hhagavan nydyarh (Brockhaus nyUyya^) tapasvi tparfh hi
dhdrmilcali. Sy War haben einen Eechtshandel miteinander, darum bitten
wir, sei unser Richter. Ar undoubtedly agreed with Sy originally; some
versions, evidently secondarily, have no direct quotation.
(12) III § 186. The thief and the ogre fall to quarreling about which
shall attack the brahman first. Then, eva^ft ^raivotthdya brdhmmpd^
sdmdhdno bhUtve$tadevatdm.cmtradhydnendtmdnarh rUlc$aBdd udgiki^ahgu*'
4ena ca cmrdd goyugarh raralc$a, So aUhaydUahepd^e ca tasmin rakBoghna-
jdpini, brdhma7)>e. tayor idaih irutvd halamantrdir jaghdna
Sy Und der Askot er^vachte samt seinen Haiisgenossen aus dem Bohlafe
und sie standen anf. T does not attribute any action to the brahman
at all; in SP we find what are apparently various secondaj^y attempts
to fill the gap, quite diifei*ent in tlie different mss., and none resembling
166 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, contiimed
the original as determined by Jn and Br (very close to each other), and
partly also by Pa.
(13) III § 196 end. The carpenter, after telling his wife that he is
called aw'ay on business, adds in Jn tatra dindni Icaticil lagi^yanti. tat
tvayd Mmcit pdilieyaflh wama yogyaiii mdheyam {S])! Mryam), So tat tvaya
mama saktvMi pdtlieyam diyatdm iti. Sy dariim riclite mir den Proviant
{pdtheyam^ identical word in So and Jn) her fiir so und so viel Tage
{dindni lcaUcil\ daC ich ihii init mir fiihre. Nothing of this in T, SP.
As:reement8 of Ur-SP and both Jn versions, against T.— (1) KM
vs 3. I1iis is found in SP, N, H, S})1, and l^n, hut not in T.
(2) 1 vs 6. In c, SP best ms. reads eya, with Jn (hut SP ed. with N
and H bJiUmdu, so that it is ])robably more likely that Ur-SP rend
hhumdu)\ T has naro.— In d, SP, N, H, Spl and Pn vdmrali\ T marlcatah*
(3) I vs 8. Found in SP, N, H, Jn; not in T. ’
(4) I §40. SP, Jn hliito hMiaparivdra§ ca; T hMrm ca hhirupanvara^
(P “pan"”) ca (same sense, but unoriginal language).
(5) I vs 21. SP, N, Jn dhunmniarh, T dhurtam tarn; see p. 109.
(6) I §49. SP, Jn duraradhyd hi (SP ed. omits 7h, hut a has it) nara-
patayah (Jn rdjdnoli, SP ed, nrpdh)*^ T durdrohan ca (P wrapatayali\
So durmadm ca , . . isvardh:^ Sy es ist schwei', einem Herrscher zu dienen.
(7) I vs 40. Found only in H and Jn; not quite at the same i)lace; of doubt-
ful originality, since it might easily have been suggested by the context
and inserted independently in PI and Ur-Spl.
(8) I § 62. SP, H, Jn avajnd’^ T anddarah (synonym).
(9) I vs 53. In d, T has vilcriydm, for SP, H, Jn vikramam^ which
seems better. Pa (Sy bekriegt = karoti vikramam'i) seems rather to support
the non-T version, but is perhaps not decisive.
(10) I § 309. SP, H (SP« pmgaldka dha, H rdjdha) : katham asdu
jmtavyo droJmbuddhir iti Pj^l piiigalaka dha: kaihmh jneyo ’sdu mayd
dur^ahxtfddhir iti cdsya yuddhatnargali. UL Spl pingalaka aha: hJw da-
manaka, kah praiyayo Hr a m^aye yataJ} sa mamopari du^duddhiJh-‘'Not
in By, Pa. T only pvhgaldka dha: hhadra has tasya yuddhamarga iti.
(11) I vs 98 ah. BP, N, H, Jn, T: hhdmsnigdhdir (for hhdva, SP citran\
prdjMidi, N, H T snigdhdir eva) upakftam api {T hy upalpH-
gan^dir) di>e$yatdm eti (Spl ydti) kimcic (T kascic), chdthydd (SP, N, II
sdk^dd) anydir apakpiam api (T apakrtinataih) pritim evopaydti (Spl varies).
Ur-SP and Jn agree in the main against T.
(12) I V8 140 b. BP, PijL paths, na ydnti ye,, N mcanarh na ydnii yo
^read ye)^ Spl na ySnti ye paths ^ T na ydnti vartmanS,
(13) I vs 164b. SP, N, Jn yatra khddanti mdsakaJi (Spl Hkdli)\ T khd-
date yatra mu^dkal}*
(14) II § 57. SP, H hira^yakah (^SPa adds dha] II kini cdnyat for 7h‘°):
Hutrupak^o hhamn amdkam, ukiaiit ca (E. caitat), in Mrap^ya{ka) aha: bhos
tvayd vdiriy^i &alm kaihaih (Pn katharh before toayd) mditrm Jcaromi uktam
ca. — Not in the others.
(15) 11 § 172, SP tad hhadra hfte ^py arihe sarhtdpo na karariiyali, II
Hi matvd fiatfitfipo Hihamlh Hjarh (?) tvayd na kaHavyah. Jn tad hhadra
Agreements of ITr-SP and both Jn versions, against T
107
MraiiyaQca) evmn jmtod dhanavi$aye (Pn adds tmyd) sarfitdpo (Pn ‘'Samio^o)
na Mryalh uktan'i m.— Not in others; T is here very mncli confused. The
verbal correspondence is too close to be accidental, in my opinion.
(IG) II § 173. Like the preceding, found only in SP and Jn (this time
not in H), and corresponding only in general sense, not in exact language;
but pretty surely original, in my opinion. See Grit. App.
(17) III vs la. SP, N, Jn purmviTodhitasya (N T piirvapardji^
iasya.
(18) III vs 65 c. SP, Jn priyaMraha hhadra^i te (N tmtprasdddt tato
Ihadm)'^ T (only in P) priya^ cam ea (v. 1. priyaheduro ^pi) llmdraimm
(v. 1. tvaifii hhadra).
(19) in vs 80b. SP, N, Spl vajrapdtavi^ame-^ Pi? mkymajravi^ame:, T
valcravdkyanipup£. Sy jirobably reflects the word vajra with “ ein W ort
. . . das sehliinuier war als eine Pfeilspitze.”
(20) V vs 3 a. SP, N, Jn kuparijndtan’i (SP ed. v. 1. T hu-
matijndtam.
(21) TI vs 72a. T, Jn ddnena tulyo nidhir (T vidhir) asti mnyali\ SP,
N na ddnaiulyo nidhir asti kascit nidhi is intrinsically better than vidh%\
“ there is no treasure-store like generosity ”, that is, giving away money
is the best kind of hoarding. One T ins, corrects to nidhir.
Agreements of Ur-SP and Spl, against T (and Pn).— (1) KM vs 1.
Not in Kielhom-Biililer’s edition, but in mss. of Spl according to HerteL
In c Plertel says that Spl has vidu^e with SP, N, against T mahate,
(2) KM vs 4. Found in SP, N, Spl only.
(3) I § 316. Damanaka, speaking to Saiiijivaka, says in SPa and H yady
api rdjavisvdso na kathaniyali, iathdpi, Spl mitra, smmindm sadvdnarh
mantrabhedam karturh na yujyate. (verses inserted.) tathdpi. Nothing of
this in T, Pn; it is very possibly represented in Pa by Sy Es ist etwas,
was man niclit offentlicli sagen darf. Ich habe es nicht gesagt,. weil ich
nicht meinen eigenen Schaden suclien wollte. (This seems not to be found
in Ar.)
(4) I §§ 336, 339, 342 &c., 381. The name of the camel in Story 8 is given
in SP and Spl consistently as Katkanaka. In T it is usually Kraihanaka,
but one ms., p, reads kathemaka in § 381. In Pn it is regularly vifiata, in
H variously dtrakaf^a, or chidrakarp^a-.^ P^ and H are obviously
secondary. Besides the variant of ms. p in § 381, I find other evidence
that T goes back to a reading kathanaka. In § 339 T reads wyaso *bravU:
akhydtandmo^'o 'yam iti, Hertel renders; Das ist ein Kamel; es hat mir
[diesen] seinen Namen genannt. But it seems to me that the words can
hardly mean this. They seem to mean, taken naturally: ^*Hiis is a camel
named Akhyata.” I think dkhydta can only be an equivalent, or a blundermg
substitute, for the original kathanaka. Both are understood as meaning
something like Fabulous the camel is distinctly said to be an unheard-
of and “ ridiculous ” beast to the lion and his retainers. Pi^’s vision of
§ 339 is based on T, and is an attempt to rationalize it: u^c 'yarh lohe
prakhydtandmd) “ this is a camel, his name is well-known in the world.
Note further T’s text § 352, where the name krathanaka is first mentioned:
168 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstriictioa, continued
emm uktvd (p °tci8) te 'py utthdya Icraihamlcena saha mndntarmii pravi^tdli.
As if the camel’s name were already known I (Hertel feels constrained to
put in a footnote in his translation: “ Dies ist also der Name des Kamels
he evidently recognizes the harshness, without being (juite willing to
admit it openly.) But T has not previously mentioned the camel’s name—
unless my interpretation of § 339 is correct. In any case T’s version is
inconsistent with itself. Either (as I think) it uses a corrupt form of the
name in § 339, or (as Hertel thinks) it mentions no name before § 352
but tliei’e speaks as if the name had been previously mentioned.— The
name krathanaJca is meaningless, in any case, and can hardly have been
the original form. It seems to me very clear that the original had katJia-
naka with SP and Sph
(5) I vs 174 d. T, Pn kfiyarh (metrically inferior) for SP, N, H, Spl krtam.
Agreements of Ur-SP and Pn, against T (and Spl).— (1) I § 4. SP,
Pn sdriJiamhali prativasati ama; T, Spl kre^^iiputro (Spl my,ikputro) ha-
hJium, CJf. p. 88 above,
(2) I vs 5. Found in SP, N, H, Pn; not in T, Spl; perhaps reflected in
So and Pa. See p. 81 above.
(3) I vs 16. Found in SI^ (ed.) and Pn at the same place, but nowhere else
(not in N, H, and not even in SPa); very likely a secondary insertion, since
it is a verso that might easily have been suggested by the preceding one.
(4) I § 214. The heron refers to the crab’s flesh as apurva in SP, H,
Pn only. (In Pa the entire section is omitted; it is greatly reduced in Br.)
(5) I § 267. SPj H, Pn sveechayd (H sveccMtali) pravartate\ T iccJiati
pmportitum. Others failing,
(6) I vs 82 ab. SP, N, H, P^ tat karma yon mrmalam (T yat kdmalaiii) ;
SP, N, H, P^ m matimdm (T $a ca pumdn) yah mdhMr abhyarcyate. The
verse oecurs also in Pa. The flrst phrase seems not to be found in 8y;
as to Axy Wolff has die bette Dntemehmung die, vreldio das erfreulicliste
hkide nimmt,” which might conceivably be yat Mmalark, but might also
be a slight misunderstanding of yan mrmalaffi. The Pa versions of the
second phrase hardly help us to decide, as tliey are confused; but JCaj)
has bona vero fama in artificiis permanet iustorum; Derenbourg justly
observes tlmt “in artificiis” is obscure in meaning; does it somehow or
other represent confusedly imtimdn'^
(7) I vs 92 a. SP, N, H, Pii drddhyamdno nfpatih prayatndd ; T drd°
baJtubMh prakdrdir.
(8) I vs 108 c d. SP, N, Pn nastci^^ Jcftam alcj'taj^e m$iam ddk^iy>yam
agima^m (Pn? SP v. 1. ancd)hij^), T gu^o ’gu^ajHe mP ddP akftajne.
(9) I § 328. SP, H, Pn, and T are all verbally very close to each other.
The word vMmadJMralj, of the original (SP, H, Pn) is corrupted in T. fl’lio
corruption is somehow eoimeeted with the fact that in Pn it is preceded
by the word addu. For these two words T (ed.) has simply dddu madimrah,
omitting rail-; vv. 11. of T mss, are dddPdtmadhm^ali^ dddv dtmaharali-
(10) I vs 125 d. SP, N, Hp sa Jcfcchre 'pi na Bldatv^ SPa sa hrcchre^v am-
Bidati; Hm Jcpcchretidpi na Pn na Ba Icrcchre^u sP.— T mpJudds tamja
huddhmjah,—Va gives no help.
Agreements of ITr-SP and Pn. against T
169
I (11) T vs 171 c. SP, Pn prahadhitciir (SP ed. vihdP, aprdbaP)] T pi^msiiuir.
\ (12) T vs 17o 1). See above, p. 88, Plio SP, N, H, ]*n version forms a
i better parallel for pada a.
I (13) II §62. SP, Pn pratydyitOy probably supported by Pa, Bv; H d%>
|| ynyito\ T pratyarthito. See p. 93f.
'i (14) II vs 36. SP, N, Pn msa% T sthdnam, in a^ SP, X, Pn hliagmmdmifi,
;1 T mdnalimaTfii, in b.
(15) II vs 54 cd. Pn samciniiiarh tv dit^adham dturam hi I'w'i ndmamdtmia
!' haroiy arogam. So Ur-SP (witli vailous vv. 11.) except na for and for
I dturmu hi, N, H dturdyidrii, SP dtumngo, SPa ^gam. — T ulldghayaty dturam
} dii?adham hi Idrii ndma° Ihavaty arogali,
(16) II vs 55. SP, N, H, Pn adhyavasayahhiroli, T avyavoP, in a. SP, K,
H, Pn artham, dndhyam, in d. See p. 105.
(17) II vs 61. SP, N, H, Pn sdhasdc ca parihip^am in b; pramadei'^a
hi vfddhapatim in c. T pduru^avihTnam (so with a), and wddham im patinl
pramadd,
(18) II vs 64 c. SP, N, l^n i^ahnilcmr^gasadrmfh ca soda (SP, N mahd-)
f nagendrarii. T ^Hhharam for ^sadv^a'ih (T is intrinsically inferior).
I! (19) IT vs 69. Found only in SP, N, H, Pn.
ij (20) II § 207. SP and Pn begin the deer’s story in the same way; T has
i a long unoriginal insertion. See Grit, App.
■ (21) II vs 91. Found only in SP, N, H, Pn.
I (22) III vs 74b. SP, N, Pn rajah posyaty asaTfiaJcftci^ T ra^ panyati
■\ . (a lectio facilior).
i' (23) III vs 81 b. SP, N, Pn lcdldpeTc$i hfdayanihitavi (N He); T hlldlTml'ff
i; pihitanayano. Of, Ks (following T), hllahdnk^ind*
\ (24) III vs 90. T transposes padas a and b from the order in which
1 they are found in SP, N, Pn.
I Agreements of Ur-SP and Pa.— (1) I § 3. SP, H dalmdpailie, su])ported
by Ar Dstb' (lacuna in Sy); 'P, Spl, Ks dak^indiye janapade; Pn Hyc^u
^pade^u; So nagare Icvacit
(2) I § 7, first clause. SP tatrdlahhamdnasya na Uriidd asti H similarly.
Ar (lacuna in Sy) Denn w^enn er nicht erwirbt und kein Vermdgen hat,
fiudet er keinen Lebensuixterhalt. This clause is obviously required by
the logical development of the theme. It is nevertheless omitted in T,
f ' evidently by accident, and also in P^, wMcli here follows T. Spl and B|*
j omit the entire sectioir, so that nothing can be argued from their silence,
I (3) I vs 67 a. SP, N, H madigdhasya hhaktasya (with vv. 11.); T, Pi?
I hapialtasya ca (tu) hhagnasya. Pa supports SP, N, H : Sy Ein angefreseener
i ^ Zahn (= pada a) und eine faule Speise; Ar similarly,
i (4) I vs 96 a. SP, N midyavidt>ajjaMmdtyd; T midyasdihmtBardindtyd,
i Not in Sy; but Ar proves that the original was ‘'scholars” and not
:] “ astrologers ” (OSp los tedlogos de la ley). OSp also reproduces very
well the other two members of the compound: cualquier d© los vasallos
al sefior, o de los fisicos al enfermo.
(5) I vs 118. A verse in BP, N; prose in T, Pi?; equivalents in So, Pa;
and a different verse of similar meaning in Spl. There are two indications
170 Chapter VII j Examples of method of reconstruction, continued
that Pa’s original probably agreed with SP, N. First, Sy begins “ Und es
heiJSt ja ” (Ar similarly), whicli is a favorite way of introducing what
was driginally a verse. Secondly, the “ Kadaver ” of Pa (see Grit. App.)
points to pitfvana’‘{mhamgdir, or the like) of pada b of SP, N, no equi-
valent of which is found in the other Skt. versions.
(6) I § 459. Only in SP, H, and Pa is it stated that Karafaka and Da-
manaka went to visit the lion at this point. But it seems that they must
represent the original, and that the other versions must have carelessly
omitted the statement, since the two jackals are present later on at the
battle between the lion and the bull, in all versions.
(7) II vs 11. A Averse in SP, N, H; prose, and briefer, in T; omitted in
Jn and Bp. The version of Sy seems to sui^port SP, N, and H; see my
Grit. App.
(8) II § 233. See above, p. 87 f.
(9) III §§ 78 and 79. In SP, H, and Pa the elephant-king addresses the
moon with apologies and promises (in language that is unusually close).
This is what we naturally expect 5 it is what the elephant had come for.
In T (followed by Ppi), altho the elephant first makes obeisance to the
moon, or, in Pn, apologizes to it, nevertheless his speech is addrest to
the hare, not to the moon. In Spl, Br no speech is mentioned.
(10) III § 102 end. After the tricky cat says he cannot hear well be-
cause of age and deafness, SP and Pa say that the hare and the partridge
drew nearer. SP tatas tdu nilcatibhuya lcathayatali\ Sy Und so naherten
sie sich noch urn ein Kleines und erz^hlten iliren Rechtsbandel mit lauter
Stimme. Similarly Ar. Others nothing. Of, next.
(11) ni § 103. Just after preceding. SPa tatas tatsamnidhdndrthaifi vU-
vd$am upapddayatd dadhikarnena dharma^Estraih pathitam. Sy Er aber
sprach zu ihnen, damit sie Zutrauen m Him fa^tm und hercmtrdten.—Th^
italicized words are represented nowhere else, but seem to be original.
(12) HI vs 53 e. SP ddgdhath dmSncden^i (and so N intends, corruptly).
T, Jn vded dur^ta^h bU>hat$afh. Probably represented in Pa: Sy Uber-
handnehinendes Peuer kann mit Wasser niedergeschlageii werden, [tlien
expansion,] aber Yerbittei-ung [JGap ignis vero inimicicie] lafit sich mit
nichts ausldschen noch beruhigen. T and P:o have no mention of fire.
(13) III vs 92. T (P; omitted in «) puts pada a of SP, N last. Ar begins
witli what is pada a of SP and N, hut pSda d of T. But since Pa fre-
quently transpose this can hardly be regarded as conclusive proof of
the originality of 81^, N.
(14) III vs 105 c d. SP, N buddhir buddMmatotsr^td hanydd (SP hanti)
(so SP«, N; SP ed* rdgyarh) mvrdjahmh T pi'djnena tu matih h^ipta
hanydd garbhaywtdn apl Pa supports SP, N: Sy Ein Kluger aber ver-
niehtet durch seine Klugheit einen K5nig und sein Land.
(15) IV §8. SF sdhc^acdpalddt^ Sy Boi seiner Ntoischheit. Nothing of
tliis sort in T.
(16) IV § 42, end. The ape says to himself, in SF Ica^^aniy na^o
vfddhatve 'py ajitendriyatvaphalam anubhavdmi. Tmh ca. Sy is fragmentary ;
Ar Alas, in spite of my many years greediness has cast me into an abyss
Ao^reements of Ur-SP.nnd Pa
171
of misfortunes. He was right who said. — T has no speecli. So has a speeeh
to a different effect: hantaitadartham dnltali pdpendham ihlmund.
(17) IV vs 14. Found (immediately after the preceding) only in SP, N,
and Pa (Ar).
(18) IV § 45. The ape explains his allegation that his heai’t is on the
tree hy saying, in SP: mnarahTdayam sadd iaru^u ti^hatlti prasiddliam,
Sy So ist es die Gewohnheit von uns Affen, daH wir heim Ausgehen unser
Herz nicht mitnehmen. Ar similarly, with addition of reasons for the
alleged custom, which vary in the different versions and are evidently
secondary. Nothing like this in T.
(19) V § 16 end. The hrahman, dreaming of his she-goats, says they
will hear young at the age of six months; then, in SP, tasyds cdpatydni
tathdiva prasUyanie. Sy Und ebenso ilire weiblichen Nacbkommen. Not in
the others.
Agreements of Ur-SP with So and Ks. — 1 believe that these versions
preserve the original, against variations in T and Jn, in several places
in the story of the Ass in the Panther’s Skin (III. 1), especially in III
§§ 32 and 33, on which see iny Grit. App. (This entire story is omitted in
Pa.) In these two sections SP, H, and Bo, also to some extent, agree
very closely, while T and Jn are wholly different, and moreover do not
agree even with each other. While both Ur-SP and Br abbreviate, they
usually do so independently of each other, and here they coincide to such
an extent that it is hard to think it an accident Moreover, in § 33 they
are actually longer than T’s version— wdiich of course is usually fuller
than they.
Agreements of Pa and Jn,— 1 § 95 end. Jn ity avadMrya (Spl ernm
sampradhdrya) sthdndntaram gatvd damanaJmmdrgam (Spl damanal'am) ava-
lokayann elidici tasthau (Pn ^Icy evdtasthe). Ar Naehdein der Howe uiiahlilssig
hieruher nachgedacht, duldeto es ihn nicht lunger an seinem Platze und
er maehte sich auf den Weg. Und ah und zii setzte er sich nieder und
schaute den Weg eiitlang.— The whole passage of which this forms a part
is found only in T, Jn, and Pa, so that the otlier versions, except T, could
show nothing on this. T has no such statement as that quoted, unless
possibly part of it is included, confusedly, in the last part of tlie lion’s
soliloquy, just preceding. But at least T has no phrase corresponding in
any w’ay to damanalcamdrgam maldkayann (Ar schaute den Weg entlang).
(2) I § 147. The weaver has waked up and spoken to his wife (as he
supposes, hut really the barber’s wife who has taken her place). She
makes no reply. Then — Pn so 'pi hhuycts idfh tad evdha. Spl practically
the same. Sy Nachdem er sie oftmals gerufen hatte. Nothing in the others
(T, SP, H).
(3) I vs 97 b. Spl drohacyutdndm (rather than T ehdrpa^dndm) seems
to be supported by Ar (KF with love remote from deceit); Sy omits the
word. The vs occurs only in T, Spl, Pa. T seems to me inferior to Spi
in d also; see p. 176 below.
(4) I § 198. Beginning of the story of Heron and Crab. Spl and Sy are
very close to each other and seem to represent the original. Spl mii
172 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued
’kasmi'fmcit prade^ ndmjalacarasamiham saraJh tatra ca Jcftdsmyo Ijalxa
eko vfddhahhdvam upagato maUydn vydpddayitum asamarfliali^, Sy Es war
einmal ein Elsclireiher, der wohnte bei cinem Wasser, in doin sicli [Eohricbt
und] viele E^sclie befandeii. Als er ins Alter kani, koniite er nicht melir
viele Fischo fangen und wurde schwacdu— The other versions are ail
more or less fragmentary. T only asti kascid boko vTddhabhdmt sukho-
pdydrfi vfitim dkdnk^amdiirah. SP only asti kasdd vfddhabakah* Pn locates
the heron sarastmlikadesej else much like T. So locates the heron mat-
syadhye sarasi (supporting Spl and Sy with matsyddhye, which no other
vex’sion has). In H the lake is mentioned, as in Spl, Pn, So, Pa; and also
the heron is sdmarthyahina.
(5) I vs 83. E’oiind only in T, Pn, Pa; the second half is radically
different in T and P^; Pa’s version seems to be a garbled equivalent of
Pn, and is in any case closer to it than to T. See Grit. App.
(6) I vs 129. Again Pa seems to support Pn against T; see below p. 176.
(7) I vs 139. Found in T and Pa, and in Pi;i (pada a in one verse,
padas bed in another just before it). While Pi? is secondary in separating
the padas, and T’s pada a is better represented in l^a than Pn’s, neverthe-
less in padas h and c Pa seems to support Pn against T. Namely, in b
T has khaldndrhj Pn manddmm^ Sy der Tor; in c, T cak^uhsamskdrajan'i^
Pp cak^uhprabodhanaifij Sy das Licht, mittels dessen sonst jedennaim sieht.
(8) I § 506 end. Dustabuddhi suggests dividing part of the find of
money and hiding the rest; and he continues in Spl: bhUyo ^pi prayojane
sathjdte tanmdtrafn sametyasmdt sthdndn ne^ydmh. So Pa (Ar; lacuna in Sy)
And when we need ready cash, we will go together and take what we
need. This is all omitted in SP and Br; and in T, which Pp follows, we
find a wholly different motivation, which seems to me clearly secondary :
, fatMdrwi^am^ p%i^apar%k$d hrdmvfddMbkydffi^ (so ed. em. with Pn, mss.
°dkitd) bhavi^yaty ekmthcdd ca janaspfha^d.
(9) I vs 175. Occurs in Skt. only in Pi?; a reflex of the last pada
seems clearly found in Pa, see Grit. App.
(10) II § 18. The doves are to fly giHtaTUvkamabhUbhdgdndm uparij
according to P9. No other Skt version has the like. Pa’s versions are
confused among themselves but seem clearly to point to an original some-
thing like Pn. Sy has, according to Sclmlthess, “in die Pfianzungen,”
but Bickell “in den Wald.” JGap, which seems to bo the most
original Ar version here, has per rnontes et colies et arbores (!very
close to P^ I) ; OSp “ by the place of the many trees and the inhabited
region ; ” Cheikho “ over the fields, the gardens, and the inhabited re-
gions.” The “inhabited regions” of some Ar versions seem to be due
to an anticipation of § 21, later on, where the doves finally go to the
city to visit the mouse. Note that in Ar, owing to confusion in the •
order of the sections, tins § 21 follows immediately after § 18.
(11) II § 59. This section (see rny Grit. App.) has no trace in any
versions but T, Jn, and Pa ; both T and Jn are fragmentary, having
preserved different parts of the original, as represented perfectly by Pa
alone. The larger part of the section occurs in Jn but not in T.
Agreements of V!\ and Jii
173
(12) II § Go. In the speech of the crow to the mouse, the words of
Pn yad durydn na nmjacchasi are omitted in T, but found in J^a (Sy
imd kommst nicht zu deiiiem Loclie herauB, Ar What keeps you at the
door of your hole and what hinders you from coming out to meV). The
other versions omit the entire section.
(13) II vs 33 ah. T, Pn tyajanti mitrdni dhanena liinaih (T dJiandir
mliinam) putrds ca ddrm ca saJicdards (T suliYjjandH) ca. Pa supports Pn
in h (Sy seine Verwandten, Ar his relatives). Moreover T’s version is
improbable a priori^ since suhrjjanas is a synonym of mitrd'^i (pada a)
and therefore pleonastic.
(14) II § 158 end. llie mouse hopes to get back his money, —Spl yena
bhUyo ’pi me vittaprabhdvenddhipatyam pUrvavad hhavati. Sy und kommt
mir ein Teil der alton Kraft wieder und wenden sich mir dann auch
meine Freunde wieder ziu Ar similarly. T, Pn have nothing like this
sentence ; the other Skt. versions omit the entire §.
(IB) II § 229. See above, p. 158.
(16) II § 237. After lamenting the capture of the tortoise for some
time, at last the mouse says to his other friends, (Spl) aho 1cm vrthd-
pralapitena (&c., suggests the need of doing something). In Pa this is
apparently represented by Sy: So richtig du auch gesprochen hast, so
haben wir doch von der Traurigkeit keinen Nutzen (Ar likewise). It is
found in no other version. In Pa it is put into the mouths of the deer
and crow, a rationalizing change, since it was (in all versions) the mouse
Avhose lamentation was quoted; it therefore seemed to the Pa redactor
more natural that the others should question the value of lamenting.
(17) III § 46. As a result of the twelve-year drought inentioiied in
the preceding section, Jn say : tayd (Fndyayd) ta^dgahradapalvalamrdiisi
m^am iipdgatdni (Pn upa°), Sy und Saat, Gras und Kraut waren spitrlicli,
sogar die FliLsse und Quellen waren versiegt. Ar likewise. Not stated in
other versions. It seems that a definite statement is at least desirable,
if not necessary, since the point of the story dei)eiids on the fact that
the elephants could find no water because the ponds were all dry. Of
course, this is implied in all the versions.
(18) III § 134. The wise crow-minister, in prescribing the feigned
maltreatment which he wishes to be inflicted upon him, instructs his
master in Jn and Pa to pretend to be angry at him : Jn atini^thuram-
candir nirhhartsya (Spl bhartsaya) ; Sy Mein Herr ergrimmt fiber micli
angesiclits des Gefolges und ^ufiert sicb schlimm fiber mich. Ar like-
wise. The equivalent of these words occurs nowhere else.
(19) III § 152. Pp sapati ; T mss. ^bhipatati (or Hipatati)^ emended by
Plertel to Pp’s reading. Sy den ver Audit aoin Gltick. Ar versions seem
not to contain the word “ curse,” but doubtless Sy (supported by P:^)
contains the original Pahlavi version.
(20) III § 162 end. The old man, awakened by his wife’s suddmi em-
brace, catches sight of the thief, and— in Spl— nUmm $0
cdurasya iaHlcayd mdvii samdUff^gati. Similarly Pp, Pa (Sy wuilte er, dafi sie
ihn aus Purcht vor diesem umamit hatte). Natural as this seems, and
174 Chapter VII: Examples of method of reconstruction, continued
close to eacli other as Ju and Pa are in language, T do not feel con-
hdeiit that both have not expanded the text secondarily. For T, Sl^, and
So are also very close to each other at this i)oint, and none of them
have a trace of this, tho of course the idea is clearly implied in them.
Agreements of Pa and So (Ks)*-(1) I § 69. The lion, being askt
by Damanaha why be has stopt after setting out for water, soliloquizes
in So ; lak$iio 'smy amuna tat kirfi 'hhaktasydsya niguhyate. In Sy he says :
Weil nun Dmng diese Stimine gehort hat, will ich ihm das Geheimiiis
offenharen und ihn dabei auf seiiien Verstand und auf seine Freundschaft
prdfen.— The first clause of Sy seems to coiTCspond to So’s laheito &c.,
which has no correspondent in the other versions ; and “ Freundschaft ”
seems to point to So’s hhalctasya, which is also not found elsewhere,
rather than to yogyo of T, Jn (with which cf. Sy Verstand ?).
(2) I § 89, In proposing to go and investigate the noise, Damanaka
asks the lion’s })ermissioii in So {manyase yadi) and I*a (Ar Der Kdnig
geriihe nun, mich nach dieser Stimme auszuschicken ; lacuna in Sy),
whereas in the others he simply states his intention of going.
(3) I § 311. As Damanaka leaves the lion to visit the bull, the text
of So, and Pa and perhaps SP (? so ed., but not SPa nor H) ex-
presses variously the idea which 1 have exprest in the reconstruction by
si^vam tnkftdhf'dayaift vidJioya. Tho the other versions have nothing of
the sort, it seems at least possible that the Pa and Br vei'sions may
have inherited such a })hrase from the original. Even this cannot be
considered certain, however, as it might be a secondary summary of the
preceding passage. And we cannot guess with confidence at the language,
even supposing that the thot was exprest in the original. Hence I en-
close the words not only in parentheses but between daggers.
Agreements of Jn and So (1) I § 112, This section, stating
that Saiijivaka saluted the lion on coming into his presence, is found
only in Spl, So, and K^. It seems plausible and is probably original.
(2) I § 255. In Jn and So the lion, on seeing his image in the well,
roars into the well, and takes the echo for the answering roar of the
other lion. This incident certainly sounds good, and is very likely
original; it seems not very probable that two versions would think of
this sort of a variation independently.
(8) III § 47. Both Jn versions with So and name the elephant-
king Oaturdanta, which is evidently original. T has the synonym Caturda-
sana; the other versions give no name.
(4) III § 244. This is one of the clearest cases in which the original
can bo reconstructed with virtual certainty on the basis of two versions
alone— in this case, and So ; and also one of the clearest cases of
T’s secondariness. Hertel discusses the passage Tantr, Einl. p. 59, but
wholly misunderstands it, largely owing to failure to note the evidence
of Somadeva ; partly also owing to mistakes in identifying various
Pahlavi ])assages with passages of the Sanskrit vei*sions. His parallel
passages op. cit p. 60 are incorrect ^Vhat is called “ vs 62 ” of Sy,
along with the immediately following “A 215 a and b,” have nothing to
Agreements of ,Jn and So (K^)
175
do with the passage w'e are now considering, hut belong with T A21h,
our § 262, which occurs in exactly the same position as these T ])as-
sages. Therefore, the question so earnestly discust ])y Ilcrtel, as to
whether the order of T or of Pa is distorted, is liquidated ; neither one
has distorted order.— As to the passage we are now discussing ; it forms
a unit with the immediately following vs 76 and § 245. Ko trace of this
entire passage is found in SP (or its relatives) or Pa; so we must rely
on T, Jn and Br. The passage occurs after the owl-king, in spite of the
remonstrance of his wisest miiiisteiv has started for his home, taking
with him as a protegd the wily crow, Cira(rh)jivin. On the way the crow
reflects to himself:
§ 244: Pn niyamanas cantarlmam avahasya sthirajivi vyacintayat
So ity uktas cirajivi sa raktak^ena vyacintayat
(Note even the identical verb of thinking in Pn and So.)
Vs 76: vadhyatam iti yenoktaiii svamino hitavadina
sa evaiko ’tra mantribliyo nitisasti’arthatattvavit
Thus T and Pij (except Pn haiiyatam in a, sarve^aiii for mantri-
bhyo in c). Spl has prose equivalent in meaning, and seems
also to have a trace of the vs (see Grit App.). In So, how'ever,
the correspondence is unmistakable: nitijfiasya na caitasya
rajASnena krtaih vacab, sesa mflrkhi. ime sarve.
§ 245: T (p only) yady apy ete si’iiuyuh, tadSsa me sapbali na syad iti.
Pn tad yadi tasya vacanam akari^yann ete, tato na svalpo ’py
anartho ’bhavi^yad ete^am.
So tat karyarii siddham eva me (cf. also under prec. vs, wliich is
partially fused wdth this in So).
Note that T lacks §244 entirely! An obvious lacuna (recognized as
such by Hertol in his Translation, tho in the Introduction to it, 1. c.,
he does not seem clear in his own mind about it). When Hertel (1. c.
note 2) speaks of Purpahhadra’s version as a “ konjekturelle Besseriing ”,
he forgets Somadeva! Is So’s version also a ‘^konjekturelle Besserung”?
—The reason why Ta has omitted § 245 (found in Tp and unquestionably
in the Ur-T) evidently is that Ta interprets vs 7(5 as a comment of the
author, not a reflection of the crow; and since §245 is inconsistent with
this interpretation, drops it out. The occurrence of both passages in Pi?
and So, as w’ell as antecedent plausibility (which is all in favor of the
verse being a reflection of the crow; it is not at all the sort of verse
which the author of the Paficatantra uses, or would naturally use, in
projma persona] and So also puts it in the mouth of the crow), make
the interpretation here suggested seem to me the only possible one.
Other unoriginal features of TantraJchyayilta*— To complete the case
against the TantrSkhyayika as ‘Hhe original Pahcatantra ”, I append
here a few other examples of passages in which it appears to me to have
departed from the original. These passages are put here because they do
not seem to belong definitely with any qf the preceding groups.
176 Chapter VII; Examples of method of reconstruction, continued
(1) 1 § 160, T represents the barber as returning from the king's pa-
lace {rajalculat) in order to get his razors so as to go and ply his trade
in the king’s palace {rdjdkule, §161)! Jn follow T in §»160j and change
§ 161 so as to remove this absurdity. It seems clear that T cannot possibly
be right in both places. The Pa version of § 161 seems to show tliat
T’s statement of 'the barber’s destination in that place is original (in
spite of Jn’s variant). We must therefore reject T’s rdjakuldt in § 160,
which is supported by no version except Jn (interdependent with T), In
§ 160 H and Pa have no mention of, the place whence the barber comes.
SP has anyatali, and we may reasonably guess that this is the original.
SP could have had no reason for changing the place whence the barber
WHS coming in § 160, for it has no mention of liis destination in § 161,
(2) T §§ 195, 227, 229 ff., and vs 60. In the story of the Crows and
Serpent, T makes the catch-verse inconsistent with the prose story; in
the former it is the female crow who steals the ornament, in the latter
the male crow. Apparently in the original it was the female crow. Some
of the other versions are also confused, in different ways. See notes in
my Grit. App. on §§ 195 and 227.
(3) I § 262. In T the hare’s story of how he had been stopt by another
lion is abbreviated to the single word si'hhena (sc., mdlvfto ’ami). Tho the
other versions are not very close to each other, they all agree in having
the hare make a longer story of it, and it seems to me a priori almost
certain that the original cannot have been so brief as in T.
(i) I § 253. T first has an insertion found in no other version, in which
the lion reflects that he will not eat the hai^e until he has made him
show him the rival lion. In the same section T also omits the hare’s
reply to the lion’s speech (see above, p. 162).
(5) I vs 97 d; This vs is found only in T, Spl, and Pa. In pada h Pa
supports a variant of Spl against T (seO above, p. 171). In pSda d (Spl
icismdd afnht^ater s&&8> T reads amlunidher for
ambup<xter, spoiling the word-play {ambu^aU : amni-pat£) on the words
for ^*sea” and It seems clear that Spl is original.
(6) I vs 129 a. The vs occurs only in T, Pn, and Pa. Pn reads antar-
gd4fi’Cd)huja^gainarh gfham im ^ydldhdarfh m vamtft, T varies with emtar-
Ima^ and °it>dntabsthogr(Ui‘^^ffi mnam. Pn has better meter, since in
mrdUlav%krl4ita there should be a cesura where Pn has it, after iva»
Moreover it seems that Pn’s vydla is represented in Pa rather than T’s
siMm; By has Panther, Ar apparently 'Svild beast”, tlio OSp has ledn,
hut Derenbourg on JCap ad loe. says this is a mistranslation.— In pSda
c Pa seems to support Pp against T, tho this is not certain; see Grit. App,
(7) I §§ 547. Dhannahiiddhi’s action at the trial. See above, p. 97.
(8) II § 68. Found only in T, and Pa. Pp is fragmentary, and T is
r)bviously confused; only in Pa do we find consistent sense. See Grit. App.
This is a case in which we can only patch up a makeshift version based on
Pa, using such fragments of text as are conffisedly preserved in T and P^.
(9) II vs 25 d. SPa and N eMrimitratdm (‘^ state of having the same
friends and enemies;” SP ed. T, P^ eMnta^j Spl Jcftrima^. That
Otlier unoriginal features of Tautrakliyayika
177
eMri^ is right seems indicated by T ys 40 (an unoriginal verse), where
we find tliis word in a like connexion.
(10) II 121, 122, vs 29, § 123. The rejections of the jackal uj)oii
linding the dead huntei', deer, and boar are represented in T by the
verse alone (our vs 29). T has certainly lost the rest of the jackal’s utter-
ance, including the last part of § 121 and all of §§ 122 and 123, The
originality of at least most of this passage is shown by Jn, SP (especially
SPa), H, and Pa, and jjartly also by Br. See Grit. Aji]*.
(11) 111 vs 62. Occurs only in T, Spl, and Pa. In cd the meter of T
is inconsistent with the meter of ab; in Spl it is consistent. Pa gives no
evidence.
(12) III § 290. After this section T represents the serpent as reciting
to the frog-Jcing its vs 110, with allusion to the story of the “Butter-blind
Brahman.” This si)oils,Jlie story, since it would have given away the
whole trick to the frog-king; and in particular it is inconsistent with
the next following verse in T, our vs 96, T vs 111, which shows con-
clusively that the serpent had no intention at tliis time of hinting at
his true plans, but on the contrary was kee])ing up the deception. No
other version is guilty of such a la})se. The verse T 110 is found else-
wdiere only in Pn; but Pn, tlio he follows T here, saw the absurdity of
the verse as it stands in T, and emended the text. He has this vs (and
the story to which it alludes, wdiich T does not have) recited by the
serpent to another serpent, who (out of the frog-king’s hearing) asks
him w’hy he lets the frogs ride him. All this is evidently an invention of
Pn, intended to smooth over the inconsistency in the text as found in T.
(13) IV § 32ff. T has omitted jiarts of the original, and changed other
parts; see p. 103 f. above.
(14) IV §36. T has borrowed a sentence from IV §65; see p. 102f.
(15) IV §§ 74 and 75. T is confused and has omitted part of the ori-
ginal account of the second conversation lietween the jackal and the
ass, by which the jackal persuades the ass to go liack again to the lion.
See Grit. App.
(16) IV § 78. T’s version of the jackal’s reflections, after the lion has
left him in charge of the dead ass and gone to bathe, is certainly secon-
dary, and may fairly be called nonseitsical. See Grit, Ajip.
Insertions in Tantrakhyayika.— -Finally I append here a group of
passages in wliicli it appears to me that T has added to the original
text. Some such eases have been noted above (stories added, ]>. 74ff.;
other additions, e. g. p. 83, p. 84), I’lio passages here collected are all
cases which (so far as 1 am aware) have not previously been identified
as insertions (with one or two exceptions which will be noted); in fact,
some of them Hertel specifically alleges to be parts of the origin^. I
do not include here, as a rule, inseited verses. I regal'd as probable in-
sertions all verses of T not included in my reconstruction. The list can
easily he deduced by a process of elimination (all those not found in
my Conspectus of Text-Units, ]». 192ff.).
Eilgprttm, Pail eatan Ira 11.
12
178 Chapter Vlf: Examples of method of recoastructiooj continued
(1) KM § 13. In T the king promises a reward to anyone who shall
first report to him the completion of his sons’ education. No such fea-
ture is found elsewhere.
(2) I § 85. The expression of the jackal’s hopes of finding food in the
drum is very awkwardly duplicated in T.
(8) I § 120. T A 34, line 8. In T the lion puts Saihjivaka in cdiarge of
certain official functions, the exact meaning of which is not clear (see
Hertel’s Translation, p. 17). Hertel (1. e. note 1) argues that the passage
is original, on the ground that it is represented in. the Hitopadesa. The
passage in H to wdiich he refers is a long ex^jansion in which a brother
of the lion appears and advises the lion to put S. in charge of the com-
missary, which Karataka and Damanaka are wasting. There is abso-
lutely no verbal correspondence between this passage and that of T. It
seems to me clear that the passage of H is an invention out of whole
cloth. No one can doubt that the most of it is. TEor instance, the lion’s
brother is unknown elsewhere. And it is very unlikely that H should
have included in this long invented passage a fragmentary bit of the
onginal. Such is not the custom of H in these unoriginal insertions, of
which it contains many. In view' of the total lack of support for the
passage in all other texts there is little doubt in my min’d that T’s sen-
tence is unoriginal.
(4) I § 142 (cf. § 145). T is clearly secondary in having the weaver
come home and fall asleep twice and wake up again before binding his
wife to the pillai’. According to T, the weaver comes home and imme-
diately falls asleep; wakes up, scolds his wife, whereupon she tries to
reply, but he falls asleep again, and only after waking up once more
does he bind her to the pillar. These two cases of falling asleep are mere
blundenng anticipations of § 145. It is clear from the sense (even •without
the perfect agreement of all the other versions) that he beats (and, ac-
cording to Jn wdth T, scolds) his wife before he goes to sleep at all. The
beating is omitted altogether in T, whose account is bizarre and secondary.
(5) After I vs 71 T inserts its A 51, of which a remote imitation seems
to be found in Pp p. 59, 1. 12. No other version has the like; it is re-
petitious and poor in meaning, and doubtless unoriginal.
(6) After I vs 105 T inserts its A 69, ] probably a corruption of a stanza
(Hertel, note ad Iqc.)\ not represented elsewhere.
(7) After 1 vs 118 (prose in T), T has an insertion (A 76, 1. 3, tasmdt
pu9mm &c.), with a vs (119), found nowhere else, except that Pp has an
equivalent of the prose sentence.
(8) I § 587. All versions agree in having the crab ask the heron simply
‘‘Why are you sadV” or words to that effect. In T we find: ... tarn
aha: mdmaf Mm adydpy dM.ro ndnvsthlyata iti, hakah {i^asdodha): adlif-
tiparltasya me Jcuta dharabhUd^a iti, yato ^Bdv dha: kMaMciV'Ct-samut-
The crab’s first question is practically identical with the
question addrest by another crab to another heron in the story of the
Heron and Crab (our I. 5), and is evidently borrowed by T from that
]>bico, where it was much more appropriate than it is here.
Insertions in Tantrakhyayikn
179
(9) I § 548 end. The HCiitcneo in T which expref^ses DiiBtahuddhi’s ])cr-
turbation at seeing; the bontire lighted has no support in the other ver-
sions, While it makes good enuf sense, it seems to me hardly likely that
all the other versions would have omitted it if it had been in the original
(it is not the sort of feature which would be apt to fall out repeatedly
by mere accident, and it is hard to see why anyone should have omitted
it deliberately). I therefore think that it was probably not original.—
'Fhe point is that otherwise it would he necessary to suppose that it
was left out at least three different times, and with no suhstituie in place
of it.
(10) After T vs 1G2, T has an inserted passage (A 114, vss 172, 17B,
A 115) which is elsewhere found only in Pn, and which interrupts the
thread of the discourse, which is resumed at the point where it was
broken off by this insertion. This seems to me to confirm the unanimity
of the other versions in indicating the secondariness of the passage.
See Grit. App.
(11) II § 11. T alone has a speech of the hunter, reflecting on the
large number of birds he has caught.
(12) 11 § 13. T puts the jdaii for the escape of the doves into the
mouth of a jaratlcapotay not of the dove-king as in all other versions.
(13) After II § 17, T has a duplication of § 15 and vs 2, repeating
the reflections of the hunter. It is most obviously repetitious and se-
condary. I believe this is admitted by Her tel somewhere, tho I have
lost the reference.
(14) II § 38. T has a much fuller, and ])robably expanded, version
of the dove-king’s speech to the mouse.
(15) IT § 66 is only found in T and Pa. Both contain the comparison
of grain given to birds by hunters (as a ‘‘ gift ” not intended to benefit
the receiver). T alone adds the comparison of the net given to the
fishes. But this is a very lame com])arison ; it is the bait, not the net,
that should be mentioned if the comparison were to hold good ; the net
cannot be regarded as a ‘‘ present ” to the fishes in any sense, and can-
not be tbot of as an attraction for them. It seems clear that this is a
stupid and secondary insertion in T.
(16) After II § 82 occurs in T a fragment (vss 39—42) of narrative
and description cast in poetic form, which partly duplicates the sur-
rounding ])rose. It looks as if this might have been borrowed from
some poetic version, now lost (as suggested first by Thomas). Hertel
{WZKM.2b. 19) admits the probabiliij^ of the borrowing.
(17) II § 118. T, followed by Pn, inserts a reflection by the hunter
on seeing the boar (including a verse). No other version has the like.
(18) 11 § 133. At the end of this T inserts a prose passage and vs,
found nowhere else, in which the demand for huskt sesame in exchange
for huskt is emphasized. See above, p. 106, bottom.
(19) II § 152. T is repetitious in its version of the remarks of the
mouse’s followers; and its account of their desertion of him is certainly
much longer than the others, and in my opinion contains an insertion.
180 Chapter VII*. Bxa’.nples of method of reconstruction, continued
(20) On II vss 70—72 and § 174, which are all that ib original of a
long passage in T, see above, p. 161.
(21) After II § 197 T has an insertion, including several vss, re])re-
seating reflections of the deer after he has been canght. No other ver-
sion has anything of the sort.
(22) Before II § 207, at the beginning of the story of the Deer’s For-
mer Captivity, T has a long and bizarre insertion.
(23 and 24) 11 §§ 220, 221. Insertions in both of these sections, found
in T only ; in the former a long one, with several verses.
(25) III § 8. T inserts a long nlti passage spoken Ly Icecid vrddhilh to
the crow*king in response to his inquiry. No other version has the like,
and it seems improbable that it is original for the additional reason that
the ministers of the crow-king are not introduced until later, and we must
wonder who these hecid vrddhdh were.— The last sentence of A 200 in T
{evavi uktvdiknnttbhuidh) has no connexion wuth this inserted passage; it
refers (or at least did refer in the original) to the king and his ministers,
not to the inserted urddMli, and it is doubtless original, since it seoins
to be represented in Pa.
CHAPTER VIII
THE ORIGINAL WORK AS REVEALED BY THE RECON-
STRUCTION
Purpose of tMs chapter. — In this chapter I shall first summarize
the little evidence which I have been able to gather from the
reconstruction as to certain mooted questions about the ori-
ginal work: its original name and the meaning thereof, its
date and authorship, its place of origin, its language, and it^
character as a political textbook. This will be followed by a
tabular Conspectus of Stories found in the original, and finally
by a Conspectus of smaller Text-Units, showing in minute de-
tail the extent to which each section and verse of the recon-
struction is supported by correspondences in the older extant
versions.
name of the original work.— There is no doubt, I think, that
the original name was Pahcatantra (neuter; nominative ^train).
This is the name used exclusively in the Southern Pancatantra;
the Nepalese apparently also knew this name alone; the Hito-
])adesa used a Paiicatantra ; the Jain versions call themselves
Paucakhyana(ka), but are ‘‘ also called Paiicatantra (and see
my Critical Ai)paratus on KM § 14; here Jn call the work
Pancatantraka only !) ; the Tantrakhyayika mss. call themselves
TantrS-khyayika or ®ka, but several of the p mss, have also
the name Pahcatantra in one or two places. Hertel thinks they
borrowed this name from K I have already indicated that
1 do not believe in this K ” and do not believe there is any
reason to think that the Tg mss. are contaminated from any
other known version. Since, therefore, the name Pahcatantra
is found in all versions that give any name (none is found
in Br and Pa), and is tlie only name so found, it seems to me
quite clear that it is the original name.
Meaning of the name. — As to its meaning, it apparently means
(the work) consisting of five tantras, ” There has been con-
siderable discussion as to what tantra means, as a title of one of
1 82 Chapter VIII : The orig-inal work as revealed l)y the reconstruction
the five subdivisions of the Pancatantra. Hertel thinks it means
“Klugheitsfall,” ‘‘trick” (Pa?lc. p. 10). Others (e. Winternitz,
DLZ 1910, Sp. 2700) think it means simply “ book ” or division
of a literary work. My own opinion now inclines to agree with
the latter. This is, however, a question on whicli the reconstruc-
tion throws no light, so far as I can see, and I can adduce no
argument on either side that has not been previously advanst.
Date of the original work. — On this point also I have found
no new evidence. Herteks previous estimate of ca. 200 b. o. for
tie original was certainly too early, as Hertel has since then
recognized. In his hook Das Pancatantra he brings the date
down to about 300 a. d., following Winternitz and Thomas
(pp, cit ]). 9), The chief argument for the later date seems to
be the occurrence of the word dlnara (denarius) in the original
(in which it unquestionably occurred ; see e. g. Reconstruction I
§ 501). Keith has since ])ointed out (JEAS, 1915, p. 505 f,)
that itacism occurs in Hellenistic Greek before the Christian
era, so that the pronunciation of the word denarhos as if di-
nariHS might be older than Jolly (EecJit xind Sitte, ]>. 23) su])-
])osed; and it is on Jolly’s opinion that the assumed lateness
of dindra is based. However, it should be observed that it is
not merely a question of itacistic pronunciation of the word,
but of the word itself. It was originally a Roman coin, and
only after spreading to the Greek world and thru it to the
Farther East could it have got establisht in India. As used in
the Pancatantra it is evidently a very familiar, even common-
place coin. So that in sj>ite of Keith’s objection we can hardly
suppose that a Hindu work in which this word is so used
could be anything but post-Christian.
I think it is at present impossible to say more about the date
than that it was earlier than the sixth century a. d., in which the
Pahlavi translation was made, and later than the beginning of
the Christian era.
Authorship of the original work.— On this subject too I have
no new evidence. There is, in fact, really no evidence at all
as to who the author was. I think there can be little doubt
that the name Visnusarman, api)lied in the Introduction to the
wise brahman who tells the stories to the princes, is fictitious.
And there is no hint anywhere as to tlie true name or station
Aiithorsliii) of llie origiual work
18B
of the author. We may, however, he sure (with Hertel) that
he was an orthodox Hindu; that is, not a Buddhist or a Jaina.
I do not think that there is any reason for being confident
that he was a member of the brahman caste, nor that he was
a Visnuite sectarian^ as Hertel believes (Pafic. p. 7).
Home of the original work.— On this subject also I find little
positive evidence. Hertel thinks the work was probably composed
in Kashmir (Tantr., Einl. p. 23 ff.). But I think his arguments are
wholly inconclusive, and in large part based on a false assunap-
tion, namely, that most of the Pancatantra versions other than
the Tantrakhyayika (which is at home in Kashmir) go back to
northwestern archety])es, if not to the Tantrakhyayika itself.
Hertel’s arguments based on the animals found in the Pahea-
tantra are also subjective and inconclusive. I think there is no
reason whatever to connect the original work with Kashmir.
But I find little reason for connecting it with any other par-
ticular part of India, either. There are few geographical re-
ferences which can with confidence be attributed to the original
work. The scene of the frame-story of Book V is laid in the Gaueja
land (V § 3), that is in Bengal, according to T, SP, and Ks,
which is a pretty good guarantee that the original read so. But
this need mean nothing more than that the author of the original
knew the name of this region. Of all the older and better-known
versions of the Paiicatantra, only the Hitopadesa lias been con-
nected historically with Bengal, and this fact is unfavorable to
the assumption that the original Paiicatantra was at home there.
No evidence can be derived from the list of pilgrimage-places
mentioned in II § 98 — Pu§kara, Gangadvara (Hardwar), Pra-
yaga (Allahabad), and Vara\iasl (Benares). For, in the first place,
we cannot be sure that these places were named in the original,
since we find them only in the Tantrakhyayika (altlio the Old
Syriac shows that at least some places of the sort were named in
the original); and, in the second place, these are places whoso
names must have been known thruout the length and breadth of
India, or at least in every part of it to which Brahmanical cul-
ture had penetrated. Possibly more important is the mention of
Mount B^yamuka in HI § 134. We cannot, indeed, be oertam
that this name occurred in the original. We find it only in the
Tantrakhyayika and the Jain versions. But other versions show
184 Cliapter VIII: The original work as revealed by the reconstruction
that some mountain ’was named here. And the a subrecension of
the Southern Pancatantra reads asyasn'tig’a (tlie edition of SP,
following has the inferior reading apatyakaspiiga), which looks
like a corruption of psyaspriga (or rsya^),* this is a well-known
name of a man, but no mountain of the name is known, and it
would not be an unplausible guess that SP goes back to an arche-
type which had rsyamuka. It is, therefore, at least very likely
that T and Jn have preseryed, in Ilsyamuka, the name of the
mountain as it was found in the original work. Now, this moun-
tain is mentioned in the Markandeya Purina and in the Bphat-
saihhita as located in the south of India. See Kirfel, Kosmo-
grapJne der Jnder^ p. 85; and for further evidence Pargiter,
JBAS. 1894, p. 263; Pargiter locates it in the western part of the
Dekkan. The manner in which the mountain is mentioned in III
§ 134 seems to suggest a familiarity with the place which miglit
reasonably be sup])Osed to indicate that the original author lived
not very far from it; the comparative unfamiliarity of the name
militates against the assumption that it might have been named
in such a way by a person living in a remote part of India. This
bit of evidence therefore may be taken as tending to show that
the home of the original Pancatantra was in the south, i)erhaps
the soufhwest, of India. But it would be rash to assume this with
any confidence without further evidence to confirm it. Such con-
firmation might possibly be seen in the fact that the scene of the
whole Pancatantra (see KM I § 1), as well as of the first book ^ (see
I § 3), of the second book (see 11 § 3), and of the first emboxt
story in Book II (see II § 91), is laid in the Dekkan, in a city
named Mahilaropya (for which the variant Mihilaropya occurs
repeatedly), a city which has not yet been identified and may
be imaginary. Even this, however, hardly gives us complete
})roof that the work was composed in the soutli.
language of tiie original work.— It is a pleasure to be able
to agree whole-heartedly with Hertel’s opinion on this subject.
In my opinion there cannot be the slightest doubt that tlie ori-
ginal was composed in the Sanskrit language. I base this opinion
on the fact, which my Critical Apparatus abundantly illustrates
(and of. pp. 130 ff. above\ that the identical Sanskrit language
^ Here the city M. is the bull’s original home; the action really takes place
near the Jumna (§§ 16, 19), The city Mathura, on the Jmima, is named I § 9.
Language of the original work
185
of the orig'inal is cletarly j)reserved to a very great extent in
all the versions. This is true even of Somadeva and Ksemendra,
to such an extent as to make me feel somewhat dubious about
the usually accepted theory that they go back directly to a
Prakrit original (which must in that case have been itself trans-
lated from the Sanskrit^ as far as concerns their Paheatantra
sections); but see p. 51 above on this matter. If anyone can
read my reconstruction and Critical Apparatus, and still have
doubts about the original language of the Pancatantra, I shall
be disappointed. It is hardly a matter to argue about; it is self-
evident. — Of course, if anyone wishes to suppose that back of this
original, here reconstructed, there may have been a still older
vei'sion composed in some Prakrit dialect, he is at liberty to do so.
But there is not a trace of such a thing in the text itself, so far
as I have been able to see; and I consider it most improbable.
Character of the original as a political textbook, ^ — On this point
I can add little in principle to what I have already said in the
first chapter of this Introduction (see p. 5), to which I beg
the reader to turn at this point. I think Hertel is right in believ-
ing that the author conceived the work as one that should teach
political wisdom. I cannot agree with him, however, when he
erects this principle into a cast-iron rule, and argues that any
story which does not seem to us to teach political wisdom must
he rejected as unoriginal. This seems to me a gross exaggeration.
It argues more care and consistency than I should he willing
to attribute to any story-teller, or to any Hindu redactor of a
hook which, after all, is a book of stories— primarily that, 1
should say, and only secondarily a political textbook. At any
rate, whether primarily or not, it is a book of stories; and I
cannot believe that the author would have so rigorously re-
stricted himself as Hertel thinks. Furthermore, there are diffe-
rent views possible as to what constitutes wise conduct in given
cases. The Pancatantra, like other hooks of the sort, often pre-
sents discordant views, evidently with intent; it arranges joint
debates between characters in the stories. Thus it happens that
at least one story occurs in it (Evil-wit and Honest- wit, 1. IS)
which teaches, and is obviously meant to teach, the distinctly
non-Machiavellian lesson that honesty is the host policy. (The
point of this story was not understood by Hertel. See my paper
186 Chapter VIII : The original work as revealed by the reconstruction
on it, JA08. 40. 271 ff.) It is imbedded in a long moral lecture
read by the virtuous jackal Karafaka to the tricky Damanaka,
in which he reproves him for his villainy, assuring liim that
he will live to repent it, in spite of- its apparent success. I fail
to see how Hertel can reconcile the obvious intention of this
long passage (including this story) with his opinion that political
trickery is the exclusive doctrine taught in the Pahcataiitra.
Accordingly I must emphatically reject this criterion which
Hertel alleges for judging tlie originality of stories. It is utterly
wrong to say thal^ they must be suspected of being secondary
if they have no apparent political lesson. As Winternitz says
{BLZ. 1910, Sp. 2762); while there can be no doubt that the
work was intended from the start to be a Nitisastra, that is a
‘textbook ’ of political and practical wisdom, ’’ nevertheless the
w^rd “textbook” must be “taken cum grano salts — What
I believe to be the only safe grounds for judging the originality
of stories have been set forth above, p. 55 ff., especially 58 ff.
Story-contents of the original; stories included hy me but ex-
cluded or doubted by Hertel, — The following table will show the
stories which I believe the original contained, and at the same
time the occurrences of each story in the older extant versions.
There is practically no doubt, in my opinion, that the list in-
cludes exactly the stories of the original, neither more nor less.
Comparing the list with HertePs list (Tantr. Einl. p. 128 ff.),
we find that my list includes all of the stories whicli Hertel
then attributed to the original, hut that it also includes five
which he there labels doubtful, and three which lie there de-
clares to be certainly unoriginal. Since that time he has removed
one story (our III. 9, Mouse-Maiden) from the doubtful to the
certain column, and one story (V. 2, Barber who killed the
Monks) from the unoriginal to the doubtful column (Pane. p. 17).
His only objection to the story of the Mouse-Maiden was that he
could see no political lesson in it, and he now recognizes that it
has a political, lesson. To my mind it is certainly original, whether
it has a political lesson or not. The stories of my list which he still
considers doubtful are I. 3, III. 1, IV, 1, V. 1, and V. 2. Those
which ho still considers certainly unoriginal are 11. 4 and III. 6.
As to 1. 3, the Three self-caused Mishaps, Hertel suspects it
of being unoriginal because: (1) It is omitted in So and Ks. (2) In
Story-coiitouts ut’ thu original
187
the third anecdote contained in it, virtue and not deceit trium])lia
in the end. (3) In the TantrUkhyayika form of the story he finds
a numher of literary harshnesses. — I have indicated above that
the omission of a story in one stream of tradition seems to me
much easier to explain than its independent insertion in exactly
the same place in three streams (p. 58), The triumph of virtue
is, in my opinion, no reason for suspecting* the stoiy. The lit-
erary harshnesses (one of the chief of which is dealt with above,
]). 178), in so far as they are real, pertain to Tantrakhyltyika
alone, and proA^e only that the Tantrakhyayika is an imperfect
representath^'e of the original Paiicatantra, and that it is in these
ca§es excelled by the other versions.
Against III. 1, the Ass in the Panther's Skin, Hertel urges
the fact that it is lacking in Pahlavi and transposed in Simplicior
(neither of Avhich facts is of serious weight; Spl transposes many
of the stories of Book III), and also that the insertion of the
story seems to him awkward^ since it postpones the answer to
the croAV-king’s inquiry as to how the enmity between the croAvs
and the owls originated. This is a purely subjective opinioi^
Avhich seems to me to have no weight. I think. Hertel's objection
is based solely on Avestern esthetic principles. To Hindu story-
tellers there is nothing ohjectionahle in the insertion of anecdotes
illustrative of general princi])les involved, even Avhen they delay
the course of the main story. The story here concerned is A^ery
apposite to the situation where it occurs; it is an illustration of
vac/dosaj coming to grief thru speaking. Cf. on 11. 4 below.
IV. 1, the Ass without Heart and Ears, is markt doubtful by
Hertel, but he nevertheless states that he considers it “probably
original.” Apparently his only reason for questioning it is that
the catch-verse is not included in the Nepalese verse-text. This
is, to my mind^ no reason at all.
V. 1, Brahman builds Air-castles, is questioned by Hertel
solely because it is lacking in SomadeA^a, As I have repeatedly
said, such grounds seem to me of no weight.
V. 2, the Barber who killed the Monks, was formerly con-
sidered “ certainly unoriginal ” by Hertel, solely because it is
lacking in SomadeA^a and. Pahlavi. This ag'ain seems to me an
insufficient reason for questioning a story found in T, Je, K|,
SP, N, and H, that is in at least two independent streams of
188 Chapter VIII : The original work as revealed by the reconstruction
tradition, and in the same place in all hut Jn (which haA^e totally
rearranged Book V) and H (Avliich has no Book V and includes
the stories thereof in the earlier books). Xoaa', in Pane. 2>. 18,
Hertel inclines to think that this story may haA^e been original
after all, on the ground that it is the last story of the Avhole
AAmrk, and its omission might have been due to a fragmentary
condition of the mss. used by So and Pa.
Of the two stories in my list which Hei’tel still coiisider'S cer-
tainly unoriginal, one, III. 6, Old Man, Young Wife, and Thief,
has been discust at length above, p. 63, note 6, where I have tried
to show the fallacy of Hertel’s reasoning. The other is II. 4,
Deer s Former Captivity, Avhich is found only in T, SP, N, Pn,
and Ks, It is, as pointed out aboA^e (p. 26, n. 21), really an in-
cident in the frame-story of Book II; as such it was omitted in
at least one late version based on Piirnahbadra, eAddently because
the redactor considered it unessential to the main story and did
not recognize it as an independent story (this is Hertel’s uavii
explanation, Pane, j). 117). For this same reason it was omitted
by SomadoA'a, <iuitc in kee2>iiig Avith his usual custom; and this
may be the reason for its omission in Pahlavi, Avhicli in any case
omits several stories that Avere (in my opinion) certainly original
That the deer is saved in this anecdote “ not by cleverness but
by the compassion of another ” is no argument to my mind, and
need not be one even to Hertel if he Avill hut consider the
“ story a part of the frame, for he seems to admit (curiously,
and inconsistently, I think) that the frame may contain incidents
that are not exclusively tricky ’’ in their morals (ZDMG.
69. 114, where he seems to imply that the story II. 1 need
not have a tricky moral, since it was regarded by the author as
part of the frame). The fact that the story is told by the deer
before he has been freed from his bonds is no argument against
the originality. For one thing, the mouse was freeing the deer
whi|e the deer was telling the story, so that it occasioned no
delay (cf, II § 229, where Ave find that the mouse has already
cut the bonds). Secondly, compare the similar long conversation,
Avith seA^eral inserted stories, between the crow-king and his
ministers at the beginning of Book III; althu they were fully
conscious of the need for haste (III § 8, ahlnahxlam up^yas
cintyaiani] III § 116, after endless unnecessary talk, yavat te
Story-contents of the original
189
^sman fratl samnlpataya nehdgaccliantiy tavad ujmyas chityatCwi),
In other ^vords (c/. also on III. 1 above), Hindu story-tellers are
not troubled by such a dramatic fault as this~the insertion of
stories and other long-winded conversations at times when there
is need for immediate action. (Such dramatic unrealities can he
found in modern operas, especially. The reason for them is found
in the conflict of motives; the Hindu story-books are not merely
story-books, but also political textbooks, and they take the time to
inculcate political lessons on occasions where sucli lessons would
be out of place in real life. Similarly modern operas are not merely
dramatic compositions, but also imisical ones, and the composers
put in musical pieces that are dramatically ridiculous.) — The
style of the first part of this story in Tantrakhyayika is rightly
called miserable ** by Hertel. But this again is a fault of T
alone, and only shows the im])erfection of T as a Pahcatantra
version. SP and Pn begin with a ]>raetically identical sentence,
which in T occurs half way down the first page. The first half
])age in T is a wholly secondary insertion; and T contains
other insertions later on in the story, as shown by tlie agreement
of SP and Pj^. (See my Grit. App. fur proof of this.) It is very
clear that Purnabhadra did not get the story from the TantrU-
khyayika in its present form. While it is jiossible that he got
it from an older form of T, which lackt the awkward expansions
found in all our T mss., it seems to me fully as likely that
he got it from his unknown third source, the reality of which
is abundantly proved by other passages and is fully recognized
by Hertel This would account for the striking agreements be-
tween Pn and SP, especially at the beginning of the story, hut
also at various other points in it. Probably, therefore, we find
traces of this story in three independent streams of Pancatantra
tradition; but certainly in which is quite enuf, on the
principles laid down above, p, 58 f., to establish its originality.
CONSI*EOTUS 01^ StOKIKS OF THF ObIOINAL
jVbte.— For the abbreviations of names of versions in these tables see
the introduction to Volume I. In the H column tlie first reference is to
Peterson’s edition, the second, in parentheses, to MQller’s; so in the
column, references are to SP. and (in pai’en theses) to Mafikowski. The
numbering of *the books of the Arabic follows Wolff. In the Ar column x
indicates that some Arabic version contains a c<»rrespondence.
190
Conspectus of Stories
Coiisiieetus of Stories
191
192
Conspectus of Text-Units
Book I
Conspectus o£ l^cxt-Units
193
K W K M M ><!
W W
rH tS <£> OO
<4 -<1 ■<< -<1
CO vO Cv«
rH W W CO CO
W W oi oa <M*
•<1 <Cj <1 <} cj
* <1
CO CO CO oa
-<1
rQ
Clj
. . <»
. I
. .
o nS
! ^ r ^
o
. ^
. . ^ rr-«
• ■“ - • -s 5, o
^ ^ c? tfi5 ^
* ^ ^ [ft ^
OS 0> T-<
lO I© lO c£>
ca CM oa o 03
tH Ca CO
<tf> to CO
CM JM
CO
»n
«r
05 ■*“( tH
t- 00
CO CO CO CO
CM CM CM ga
I--
.no ^ no ^
'O O cc aj (O es
tHt-icm ; ; ; * *cM
(«
CO
tx^
'I rO
; %0 CO
! ns CO
05 ^ 'tS CM
aj t- I
rO ns
<?■» o5 u
-ef CO CO
CM CM CM
CO Oi
CO cO CO CO
3 * CO oa G» tH O cm
r-< r-l tH tH tH r-< W OJ 05 i-» tH
COOacOCO COx^rj!*«;H'^'<i^-«!poCr5^‘^’^niC'5i<'>?}C»OiOjdoO
O'^covoth oa ;*cMco^*ot'«cooa»H
lOvOOO ' * * *
cdocdcoco’cOt~t>£-^i> •
t- C~ CO 05
cO --
r~i oa
03 cd
05 Oi
CO* co’
»-< 03 |>
^ H-
•*—1 *o
•*t i£5
^ o' ^
05 t-< T-J
lO^
CO cc _
n '^. 'T! o
iO VO t>* £0
O t-; 00
CO cd CO to* cc
•(sS 'cjc '*?}<
O CO . CO
t-; 1-i . ^
r>r |C . 00 cd 00* cc cd
Ttl
CO
oa CO ; Tf vo th
cd cd OD • to 05 cd cd
-ti w *«st< '«:H
cyj ca o to
^ vO CM
CO
tOt-r-COCMfHCMCOcOOOOOOSO'rH’-^
cocococo
■r}< <o
> lO tO vO
»o
to to CO
' D- C55
I CO to
® s
T-( oa 03 CO tH M CO r-( CM (M -nH »0 to CO O w ®
'•sji'Tj^'^SnHGMuOWOiOCOtOtOtOtOtOtOOCDCO-’tTH
•<!
^ CM <!M T-( iH CO
•l>l>t>*C0C5C»CR>5O
-< <} <} <5 -<1^ <1 <1
CMC0^i0<MC0l>00C0C5O
to 10
p. t>
CMCO'TStOCOr-OO’THiOOsOrH'MCQ^KOtO
T-ttHrHr-'r-irHT-t ^ aKt-i<MCM(MCNlCMfiM
f** f*" (>
Edgerton, Pancatantra. II.
18
194
Conspectus of Text-tTnits
5^ W M K «
WWW
w <>♦ w w w w
s ^ ^ N
<i ^ w ^ w ^4
lO CO
^ CO
5h jj,
o' S '
00
<1 <J
M
,£S
bs
■w* rH VC5 CD C-
Oi Cw O o 1H CO
coOot^r-r-
CM CM (M CO GO ©0
rO rQ
e$ ei Xi
CO CO CO CO
cS O
oa CO co" ^
CO CO CO ^ ^
*o
rH
lO
»0 JlO WD O lO
th ^ ©a o> o
«X> CD ci
* ca -tn
CDt^Cn>0OrHr-
co CO CD 00 00 oo
»OCDI>
T-H i-H r-< CM CO
GO 00 od
lO
(M ©a
W CO
d d
-■'—V
— s
o
l-i
o
tH
V-— V
CO
CO
'
I©
c-
tH
:g
vcT
s
t>
’ CO
• vO^
• oq
05
CO
l>
od
cd
* Qo’
od
od
od
00
o
tH
CO
co
*
•
• cd
cd
V— <•
rQ
s— <'
• tH
tH
N— »'
00
cjs
. o
thi
cs
ca
o
w
Oi
tH
04
CO
r-
. QO
. oa
. ^
CO
o
1-1
w
T“l
*
(M
©1
r-
CO
CO
CO
co
. CO
. CO
, tH
tH
cq
d
d
• d
d
d
iH
00
©a
*
,
» ^
-!!i4
d
id
MO
o
wo
VO
vO
VO
»o
T-.
vO
vO
vO
vO
vO
lO CO t> CO
£-
R.2
CDQOQOOOdSOT-<©aeO*^‘OcOiO>Olr-COTHT~l
*>'t>c~' T-H-rHT-l'iHrHT-lT-iOOT-lr-lTH’P-*
o
T-t
CO CO v® r- 00 o
1-4 tH IH T-) 'T-t ©4
l>- fc- l> wo c- t-
©a
d
* tr- 00 cs O IH ©a
- — 3
^t-COOaO-^(M5CO^iO
p©ac«a©acoc0co'\cococc
S
I
CO CO
tH 1-(
■<5 ^
T-iTHiHiHC0c0T-i’HC0«5
wa «3
> >
Conspectus of Text-Units
195
M M
« M W W X
CO U!» T~J
t->' O l> CO 00*
^ <1 <{J
Ci ns
I> CtT S'! CO
^ ^ ^
CO
rH
<J
> CO l> . iO O CO
T-( tH t-< t-H tH
< ^ <1 ■< <1
, iO o
‘ CO CO
-tj <j
lO '
•a 2
(M CM
. . . . oJ
I ! ! I
CO
no I
o
l>
CO
cT * * * •
’ ^
♦ rd
* o
Ti
* ^
:
* . . . d*
lO
»o
so
Ri
cj
O
o3
o
. . . o
* • • *
CO
CO
I ! I * ' CO !
! os
I os
o'
O
* tH
TH *
^ I * ! ! I
w
! CO
. CO
-stl
Ml
. ^
Ml ;
OOOOOO-rjH'cff W tf5 .COO
05^0^irs^(jc,ijqQ<,oocsT-teoj>-C^C!?i .xwocc
w wo CO 00 00 OS
l—t tH T-< rH -r"! ■*-«)
o d d d d d
O ^ <M
CO ca !N oa
^ ^ ^
o
lit 5© T-l o tH
ift 05 ^ CD CO
UO
rjfi
a Xi
. s ^
d d
rH »0 T~t 5\i
d d CO CO id d
wO lO IQ i£)
O «P
TH lO
d
00
. Ofs
• d
• wa * *
• ^
wo
* O T-
• eo * *
‘ • ift
. O
• CM
. wo
• lH
tH
I CD*
. wo IT- ^
• CO • •
. . !>•
lO
»o
lO UO lit
lO
CO Tri< wo CD t-Ht-
cd CO CO CO od 00
so CO TSH jc
T-i (M tH
CO CO CD
rH
T— < -TH T-i
<1
T-< f-i CO 'Ct^ lO
iOiDOOCJs<DOT-<t>tMeO^OOCD<5>t^COOTHTH^THw
<i ^ <i <1 ^
O tH CO <M CO
r-t T-ti
lO O O tH t- <M CO
CM CM CM CM
'^iococst^oooas^i®«»co’^»D>o
OaCMCNM^DJiDCMCawOMSiOlOiOiO
^ t>^
13^
196
Conspectus of Text-Units
Conspectus of Text-Units
197
tH lO CO t— 00 05
N M OJ 03 CN
"oic^i *oio3c<Joi
XI rn
eS ® ej
■ CO -rH M> lO CO
O wO lO xO lO
^ nO O fCi
' ^ O Tjl ^ o
i>» t- 00 C&
O rc5 rxj
e« ^ O O
O 'tS »0 l>- tH ■*««(
fHrM03C0C0’cHTH----^THCDCf3 ^C3tD
CM* W <N 03 03 03 03 03 <N 03 (J3 ^ ^ CO
OC0''^<x0C0t—00OCM03
Q0a»T^TH»-^*H<rHT-iTHO3CMO3
00 CO CO CO* CO* CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
vO O t- 03
TiJiO<O'^TH|TH03C0THt^03
coooadodooQOQdoicioiS
OlCO'xi^O ff®^0303
t-^Wy-i03 •i-j03O303wc0C0
d o o o ' d d d d th th
03 03 03 03 OOI?3CMGM 03 0303
03 -s** to
O O o o
O CO CP CO
t- t- QO CO
OO CO 00 CO
CS5 tH
CO C7>
00 00 05 o
0> O 03 o
tH tH tH <M
o tH . irH »«-f
o O • o c
03 03 • CM 03
THr-l(M03COCOH}<tOCOQO
<M03 03'r-<iH03>'!i<Hj<»OtOQ0C»
t;i4'ti<<5#(xOtOtOtOtOtO»OtOtO
^ eDI>'ODCf50t-<C3CQts*»»otDr'-
^t-lT-t'-t-OOOOOO^COOOCOCO
19S
Conspectus of Text-Units
M
11
S^r^(^3 ^ WCOrHC^JO?Oa>
r^T-'THT-t'H THr-HrHTHt-iT'StH
H-i
m
<M CO CO lO OO
. .tHCO ,r^»040t>THT-|-r- It-(tHtH
Ksl
^ nS n3
*||■^'...0 dOo
CT * • * • • *• • * ■ • • * * ‘oacocoS^
05 ^ ^ ^ ^
. . . %0 • ‘ • ‘CO ^ * * -C-COCOCO
. . . t- . . • . • • • p- t^-. t- b-
05 05 CM OJ OI (M 05
'ifH
O
Sol
u ^ . . O
"ast! I... . ..
»hO nnn) r® —41 m < • m 1*^ « m * • • t>* !>■ ri • « ^-.T
oiurtS » o-t* cDOOb ,Qn3»!^
sss,« : : : : « : S § : : : :§ggg : :ggg^
8 • • • •'s • ■ • •‘s • ■ §
Pill
00 *0 eo
OiHQOCOOth-^ith .O-r-iCOeOiOiOCOQOCS-'
0'r-jTH-rHT--CN050l ..WOCOt-^CO-rHO .ca0jOICMO» 0aO5 05 05®*
‘idididijrfioid^ioxdrj
’r«(»H!tHi-ir-Ir-<THt~(“. T-Ii— irH'f-irH 'rHTH-r-iT-^THiHr^rH'H®^
tS «
m
CO tH ^
T-tCOT-(r-4CO„^COOICO CMc<i^^CO Of-tT-)CO’«:}CCO
T^r-;|T-<O5<MOjTHiffiT-<OJO5rHC0rW^^OaTH|>. Cl0r-|T-jT-i’r-jTH „
05050ICM05 05 0505 CM 0503CN0105 050501050101010505’^
o»
a
a
o o So ^
.CM01.,Ii> o?
«44
O
M
a
SP I
COOO^CO • • * . .CD .QOCXJOi a>
OOcqO ' • • 'O ‘Oo • «ooo oo
010lo05*‘**01‘CNI05‘* ‘OIOIOI 0501
1
T I
o
t-ir-l05 »Ht-(OII>*tHOI COCO»dl tHOICO‘«i<'eJl-OCOClOOOr-»
0005 )0000'rHi«*«f IrHIrHW^— .050505 05 0505050110505
poioioi .cocococococo .cocoeo^2a'^'^‘^'^<^'=^co«5coco
o
(U
U4 ^
*« Cj
§|i
’4-» ;
cu
!
4J ■■■ ■ .. .. - - — — -
CO
*Q000aOi-(05C0^i0<Dt>C005Ow«0 ^ OICO'd^iOcOP-OOOSOiH
xcooJosatJoacnososaaioscjOOvoioooooooooT-i— 1
^ T-tlH „ ^rHTH^T-<»-(t-H»Hr-(T~lT~r
1 -t
Conspectus of Text- Units
199
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
• X
X •
X
X •
X
X •
o
IM
to
‘O
CO
o
lO
CO
»-(
e»
CM
0?3
. CM CM
(M
, iH
CO
1—1
CO
00
<35
(M
CM
• ca
w
CO
CO
« CO CO
CO
uO
to
to
td
td
td
• td
td
id
td
td
td 1
* 05 CM
CM
tN
‘ CM
CM
cn
CM
CM
CM
CI
r-l
• w
1— ( •
■r^
r-l •
tH
l-K
•rt
CM
-t!
-ii <£j
<
<1 <}
Xi
rtrJ
rO
o3
eS I
* c? ;
> Cj
: ^
rH
to
CO CO
M
CM
CM
CM
CM CM CM
a
05
• CO
o
• w (M
r-
t>
• !>•
OO
• CO CO C30
IM
CM
CM
CM
<M CM CM
C!3
CM
*
O
0$
O
.
t-
yO
n3
to
ei
X
c« «
<0
ca
r-K
G5
CM -4<
<M
t-
i>
t>» 1'-
t>
t-
CO
to
CP
l>
00
ei
rH
CO
«p
05
to
CM
1-4
rH
»-(
CM
CM (M
CM
CD
yH
T-(
>H
'tH t-I
ocJ
tW
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM CM
(M
«<
CM
CM
to
iH
CM
CO
J>
C?5 CO
cd
CO
lO
05
05
tH
r-*
tH
th cm
CM
— 4
r4
1-4
«>4
yH
(m’
ccT
‘d
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO CO
CO
CM
cd
CO
CO
o
^ CO
"4^ *
CM
5«
<?a
CO
co'
o
(M*
•
^ co^ •
s
a
CO
ccT
O
o
CD 1-4 ♦
40
cd
•
O
o
x
CD
tO 'w'
r-'
CO
(M
oi
CM
CM CO «.!H
CO CO CO
(M Oil CM
*sJ4 CO «D
CO CO CO OS CO CO
« H <M eo t- l> 00 CO
• ^*1 <»»<
• ca <M CM CM CM SM
(M oa »0 to
05 CM CM <M
CM CM SM CM
T-) CM CM CO
T-C T-C 1H
CM M oa CM CO
CO CO CO CO CO
<1 -aj -<1 -<1
rS ^ CM
-H -T*! tjc ^ lO CP
CO CO CO CO 00 to CO
W <0 CO CP G>
CO 00 00 00 QO QO
CM CO to O !>■ OO
iOC0il|-cFtOCOt>*Ci0O5
»X3CMV5MCM(M<M<M(M
-o . . .
tj CO 00 OO
o
(S
End of Storj III a — Story III c
200
Conspectus of Text" Uni
^ m CD O
^ ©a M CO tH
22 CO eo to
CO tH rH rH
UO
X H X X
W CD CO
l> b-*
O O ca
ca ©a W ca,
i> i>^ t'l
X X X X X
tor"©i'^'«+lw000Ci
©a©acoco©3cococo
b- D- i>^ t- l>* t-
-r-ICMiOQOW
^©I©a^r-l®^C0i-HiHT^'rH©5i-J'r-<
„r-r-» «rflOCOOac50Ca05CJ500
co©a©a^©aTH©a©aca©a©a©acoco
OOOOcoG^cioa
COCOCOCOt-^COcOCO
00 CD ^
00 th ^ ©a
wo CO od rH oa
w ©a O th
^©aoaosiot^THw
(35 d d d d d d
0CO0OrHO5“, (35000000 .OOO-tHtHc^ODCOCO
j 2 CO o
©a CO /-"s o »"(
‘THT-Jj!jJiOcqi>05rHT-l
w w SS w w ^ -HS w
. O (N CO -cH CO CD
*0505005005 '05(35
COCOCDCDOCO OCO
^ ©0 liD tH ^
• ^ (O 'ad itS
• eo 40 (J© o;)
. ©1 CO
, ©I ©I <a> |>
• o» cs> o o
<» <a? o i>
.» — s y-^
,
■ ig ^ S
CO CO
05 05 0&
CO CO <:o
CO
i>
b-
CO
05
05
o
o
T-i
©a
©a
00
CO
-rif
.
uO
CO
CD
b-
CO
05
05
o
•r~l
©a
04
©a
(M
©a
CO
00
00
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
eo
eo
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
•'bH
©a
©I
©a
©11
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
<M
©1
©a
©a
©a
ca
©a
CM
©a
©a
©a
iO
CO
o
r-t
©a
CO
b-
o
■rH
w
r-a
©1
CO
»o
05
o>
yH
W
w
r-i
r«*
•T— 1
T-l
i-f
©a
CO
to
CD
b-
05
tH
t-4
oo
00
00
05
<35
05
05
05
05
o
05
05
05
05
05
05
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
d
tHI
T-'
r-*
T-i
r«<
W
r-l
•r- (
1— J
1—1
r-J
■H
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
eo
b-
•00
(35
O
tH
©a
CO
-r¥
to
CD
b-
CO
05
O
T-t
©a
CO
vO
CO
tr-
00
(35
o
iH
CO
CO
CO
CO
•Tl<
o
50
lO
wD
50
lO
to
io
lO
lO
CD
CD
Conspectus of Text- Units
201
W H M M }-i M W
M H M W H
r-i (N CO lO CO t> 05 rM • Ol
00 00 00 OO OO CO CO CO OO * 00 CO
CM
t
M s
»>r ph 00
CM (M - CM
•*5^ *<5 CO <i
OW-^-^O tH 0050
lO* vO tH tH CM
CM CM CM (M <M CM CM C0‘ CO* CO CO CO CO CO*
cocoeocococococococo co cococo
^ 'tSH
CO CO eo CO CO CO CO
0<MeO-f<»0<005(MCO-!i<
lO UO CD ^ euD
w w SS
os o o r-c
fH CM <M oa CM
05 <5> ca 05
CD CD CO CP CD
€SICOCO;;jiiOiOuOCDCDt>ODTH
CMCMCMOaCMCMCMCMCMCM CM
COOO'tHOl'"
VO iO ^ >0
CM CM CM CM
i-(CMCO»OvOCDl>CJa
'THTHT“('r-(’f-t»«-t'*-*T-<r^CM
OOcDOOOOO'-<t-i?2
CM<M(M(MCM(MCM(MCM<M'‘^
W tH t-t CM 00 lO
t* 1— CtHtH
* O...
^HHb-i>.i>cocoi>a>a5<30ooooooo
CMpc000C0*O^e0U»C0C0»O’cJ<«<!fi'CjC'T#<^^^
f>> <1 •<1 •<}
(MCO<^vOCOr'«>COaaOiHCO<M'oCO^»Ol>-COOOC>*<30C75C»0»H02®0'x#f50
COCDCOCDCDCDCDCOl>*l>'vQ t>* I>*b»l>iOI>*»OI>«t>vOt'«CO CO CO GO OO OO
202
Conspectus of Text-Units
H- (
H
M
k{
X
>4
K X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
QO
CO
Ol
CM
CM
00
OJ r,
CO
T-t
CO
CO
oa
CO
T-t
coa
CM
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
hJc
CO
rH
CM
CO
CO
o
'fH
d
CO
d
os
d
CO
d
CO
d
CO
d ^
CO
T-l
CO
d
(M
d
OJ
O
CM
o
CM
'Ci4 d
CM
d
CM
d
CM
d
CM
d
CM
d
CM
•
tH
(M
CM
d
iM
-sHj -<5
ja
'5'
o
S'
x>
a
“o'
"o'
rQ
fp'
b3 gj
n:j
CO
'd
tH
«M
ei
o
CO
CO
CO
CO
*
^ 5
cT
d*
u
o
S
CO
CO
CO
CO
CM
CO
CM
CO
1— (
(M
ca
'd
o
no
eg
rO
o
'w'
o
c
W*
CO
iii
w
XO
CO
CO
CD
no
rQ
CO
oa
•
CO ii
£N 00
w
CO
<M
o
nrj
o
00
CT
<0
■Ti
o
A
00
CM
*
00
CM
oo
CM
•
00
CM
o
o
ao
5^
IH
00
CO
CM
00
CM
O
00
eo
OQ
CM
CM
V
04
CM
"id"
rQ
I
•
;
cd
CO
t-
ce
r-
rd ^
I
*
eel
O
OO
;
tJ
rja
h- (
O
o
flj
cej
o
d
s
o
xO
dT
o
t- 00
1> t-
:
oo
c-
coa
t-
o
00
O
00
o
00
00
♦
l>
CO
t-
•
*
*
•
Ch
O
CO
o
00
cd
!>•
oa
O
CM
CO
XP
o
CM
-H
tH
r-(
CM
CM
(M era
(M
CM
CO
CO
i>
xO tH
T—l
CM_
CM
CM
r-t
«p
eja
tH
rH
(3*
■hJ
hJ
*o
xP
o
CD
co‘
d
<d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO ^
CO
CO
CO
xd
CO
CO
^ CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
lO
T-*
o
CM
CM
xO
00
O TH
o
CM
tH
CM
CO
XO
tH
oq
Ci
xp
t-
rA S
»-i
d
d
CM
d
*ra ^
XO
d
cd
cd
ed
cd
cd
cd
CO
'sj5
*
lO
*0
xO ^
xO
xO
»o
xO
Xp
XP
XO
xO
xp
xp
xO
xiS
xO
xP
«+4
o
___
___,
*'-'v
a
s
S
o
T— 1
CM
ca
5?
CO
HjC
xp
o'
lO
XO
CO
tH
oa
T“K
tH
tH
lH
tH
rH
XO
'
d CM
^ tH
d
§,
d
*
\> •
cd
cd
00
od
oo’
eo
cd
00
00
ca
*
o
^ «
r-C
t-C
T-<
w
tH
r-t
rH
HH
tH
rH
tH
TH
tH
■tH
tH
rH
W
;
Oa
CO
to
o
lO -rH
o
tH
tH
r-t
r-i
:
xO
tH *
CM
CO
eo
T#
>o
xea
»d
«a
•w-
xP
V— '
CO
CO
tH
•
d
d
d
d
5^ '
xd
xd
xd
id
xp
tH
xd
xd
xd
Xp
d
t*
i>
»>
t-
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
M
tH
1— i
T-l
tH
TH
r-l
tH
a
. ^
!>*
}25
CO
CO
)— (
t-
00 O
<M
CM
SO
— < C-
00
OO
oa
oa
o
O
o
T-t
tH
CM
n .
xO
>o
xp xO
to
to
CO
CO
CO
XO CO
CO
CO
«o
CO
ir-
IH
r-
I'-
iH
IH
i-H
J3Q
C4
oa
(M
P4
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
M
CM
CM
CM
*
CM
M
Pi
C4
CM
IlM
cx4
o
o
CO
CO
*0^
T-t
tH
CM
xO
CD
t-*
00
O
CM
CO
SO
i>-(
T-l
r*i
T-<
CO
tH
tH
XO
CD
l>
oa
oa
tH
tH
rH
rH
>-(
oS
Q$
e3
d
rH
CM
CM
CM
CM
§ CO*
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
eo
CO
CO
CO
C-(
*»3<
CO xO
04
CM
CM
(M
® CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
-<
<
■<I <1
p* .
U ►H
CO
t^
GO
a
o
t-4 O
CM
HH
CO
•cH
xO
CO
tH t^
00
C3a
O
T~C
M
ccT
xP
CO
C-
00
« a
00
00
00
oo
OJ
oa «o
03
b*
eta
oa
0=3
oa
CO oa
P
oa
oa
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
§.2
C *4^
<D
;4
r«l
T-C
’-I «j
l>
O
T-i
T-<
ymt
to ^
>
OQ
tH
tH
(M
CM
CM
CM
CM
04
IM
CM
CM
Conspectus of Text-Units
203
H X X ' V< X X X X
X X X X X X
OOOOO— C0»00 fNrH
T-j T-j T-; (?3 (?3 • cw (ja ct:5 w
»*«( tH — ^ ^ ' >-« tJI ’iH "M
£M<M{M<NS‘3 <N(M!N CMCN
_ O CM CO
' i~- CO . (X) CO T"j rH T-J T-^
;cM<M "(MCMfM<M<Moa
(MCM CMCMCMCMCaCM
^ O C5
CO CO CO
CO CO CO
rd ej ^
t>. CO eS
CO 00 CO
oa <M =g
<M
CO rd
rrT CO ,a u ,X3 nd
O o3 ^ eg C3
»-4CO'«^iD55c^t-OOCO
COCOOOCO<^OOOOOOCO
(§
. RJ O O d
^ w ^ CO t>
CO CO CO
nd -3 w ‘w' ^ nd
o g t:3 ^ ^ O
O ^ os (35
® 0> W (M G<1
<35 <35 <N
CO CO
SM CM ^
<35 O O O
CO Cf5 (35 <35
iOI>t^C00005C5THTH
(35 05 05* C5 <35* (35 C5 (35 <35
T-< r-* (M <M «-• dM CO
ko ud id »d CO o CO
lO O lO uO vO i£3 lO
CO-^iOCOCOCOl-COCOOOO
00 O -< -<
CM <M (M W w
CO CO CO CO
t* l> l> l> t-
CO^"?4<«0»r*l>-(iOOOOO<M’^
i>t>,i>,i>.t**r^t>»r-*c^iOCO
<M<M(M<M<M{M(M<MCM cm
CO CD r- CO
CJQ CO 00 OO
©S ^ (M (M
W tH CM CO CO
T-t ©a CO
CO CO CO* '?}I ^ -rjl J. W '■if -tP lO lO lO »Q
(M{M©l{M<MCMCM(M©c”^<MtMCM(MP“(M<MCMffaCM!M<MCM<M
CO ^ CO t- t>
a50r-<jMeO’cHiOCOl>(MOOC350TH O<Me0'^5OCOI>fl0<35O-»H<M«<S
Or-<^T-<r-{*-*i-tr-IW(a3THT-(<MCM^<McM«M(M<M<MCMCMC0*geCl®0
iMeM(M(M(M<MCM!MCM jQC<IC>a<M©C^<MC«CM©l©l<M<MD«C^C4{M«|^
End of Story IF j
S84 ( A 42 289 . 74.2 (42.14) | 56.4 40.6
204
Gonspce.tus of Text-Units
M M
• X X ^ H ^
CO CO CO
-A ^ ^
tOC—OCSCRWlCOtOitO
CMOTcMOaiNCOcOCOCC
©ic4(N<NCsiDi<?joioi
CMCN<NC^©aCN(MCSIiM
CO W CO CD
<N CO CO CO
(3<l <M <M CM
CM CO CO
CO tH tH T-J
CO CO* CO CO
(M CM (M CM
«+-i
CO
<}
fXi rQ
o CJ
l> CO
CO CO
^ ns
c3 O
(M «M
a Oi
03 03
O eS O
^ OO Oi
50 CO CO ^
CO ^
V
- esJ O cS
^ CO CO -rJ*
™ Oi Oi Ci
^ (M 03 03
-Q ctf
. cS rH
. o
*
ctf
nS G<i
O ^
ns
' T}<
• ns
! o
ffO ”
^rr <R
O (M
os f-
rQ c3 RS
iO CD
^ ^-
^ . o
^ rcJ nS CO
^ o o S-
^ lO na
c; -f «.!i< o
.
nS
C3 ^
nS
XI
to ^
03 CJ
rQ
x>
eg
rc5
rO ^
x>
eg
o
-2 i s
-d « « n
^ n:^
I— <
*
eS
,o eg
6S ^
O
03
(rt
O
RS G5
o
O S S o
CO
§ «
o
<M
03 CO
CO
rX
CD
i>
nd
^ «-r
O ^
o
iH OO
oCf
Oi
05
05 <35
<35 C73
03
“ 05
05
0%
05
05
rd
o ^ 'S
r-i
^ o
<+4
<D
O
O
o
o
11? ^
iH
n*(
05
CD
(33
00
<35
05
05
o r: CO
tH g o
o
TiJ
C35
05
iH
CD
O 00
^ CD
<30
CO
^ 05
CM
®1 sC
O 05
T-t
03 -r-
--
T*-< TH
■nf
03 t-
t-
r-t
SO
03
1-1 ^ 'ch
CO
T-^ r-*
d*
d
t o
d
d d
O ^
t-H
iH CM
CM
CM
CM
1-1 CM
03
cd OT d sd
to
sd t'^
rj<
•nH
-jH "d*
51
■Tt< ^
•d(
CM ^
•Tf t4 03
njl
■4^1 SO
d
-It*
£2 d
^ 'til
c»
(M
^ so
iH CM
^ D*
tO
O
- CO
to
3> —
O CO
CD
-?i< <35
tH
W tH
■r-< r-<
T~i
03 CO
CO
a 1-4
▼H
r4 CD 1-4 CD
C3S
34
CD
CD
CD CD
cd" ®d
CO
t- 00
CO
(£
tC5
OO
(30 <30
00
cd -L 1-4
so ^ CD CD
05
sO
t-5
1-4 1-4
m
xO
xO
sO tO
s
so
so so
sO
so
so sO
sO
CD
CD CD
jT-n,
.l-~s
CO
CM
1-4
/— N
o
CO
CO Ti<
sO V X— s, %
^ sO
*
^ I
03 *
CO
SO
tH
CD
CO
tH
OO (35
tM
1-1
iH
tH
iH
t-4 CM CO CD
T-i 03 03 CM
*
l>- 1-4
CM 03
Ti< -np
nt<
>.
^ -if ^ 'd’
•w"
W
QO ‘
O
03 CO
^ :
(35
o
O 1-4
03 CO -!»< CO
(M
SO CD
1>
1-1
W 1-1
iH
r4 1-4 rH 1— 1
1-4 CM
tH •
CO
CO CO
CO
CO
CO CO
CO
.
1-4
CO*
CO* ecj
CO
c<d cd cd CO*
.
cd -4}?
t—
l> !>-
I-*
C-
l> t>
t-
g
t-
t- i>
t-
i> i>- t— t-
t> t-
a
Cf5
CO
HH
oa
■nff «w
uO (35
CO
CO CO
^ •
SO CD
c->
t-
l>
03
03 O
o
r4 1-4 CO irH
CO CO
CL
OO
OS
<35 03
<35
03
(33 (33
05
C5
05
a
05 O
o
O O O O
o o
m
CM
03
C3
CM (M
03
03
03 (M
03
<M
03
03
<M CO
CO
CO CO CO CO
^ CO
CO
CO ti<
SO »
OO
CO so
w
th
rH 1-4
TH »*4
1-4
tH
tH
CM
CO
-I#
«ijl CD
t-
00 00 t4 1-4
1-4 t-4
(M CO
to
50 to
sO sO
sb
CO CD
03 03
CO
CD*
CO
CD*
CD to*
CO
CD CO CD CO
M
-if •4f(
CO nfi
CM
03 03
03 03
CM
(M
CM
03
CM
03 CM
<M
03 CM CM 03
*
!>
•>«« •IJI
<
^ <} <ts
Q
s§
XO CO O
CO CO CO
oa <M
^C^0P05O'^(M<!0nHx0C0t>*C0a>Oi-tCMe0'^xOC0
^SOCOCOt!f<'«#*T}<xh •^-5H-!#t'<:t'*+’»;|<»0)Ov0v0»0v0»0
^036MCM03(MCMCM 03 03CM03<M03(MCMCMCM03(MCM
m
Conspectus o£ Text-Units
205
txjH W<>.cv.
CDrH -<1 ^tH03
«'«>^COOOOO'^.-^QOiA<5>
COCOy^ 00 00 00^“^ CO C<i
<j"
05
o o o
- ^ o
rO (M
cj iH rH
tHtHCM O'-* ^ CO CNCO
CM(?a<NO^>iOiOO'r-(THweO<N<M^COCO<XiCOt>-OOCJ>
t^t-’c^riooodooodcdSl^gJooScdoo^osScji^
•srt irt -kn in in ^ ^ \rs ^ in in ^ in ^ m
)0 lO »0 ttO *C5
(M <M CO VO r— CO
^ CO CO CO CO f-r
S <>» 03 (N (M §
'** . Ti?
-H T-t CM -«# vO
-sf t:J< tJI ''«d<
»0 VO to CO 00
03
CO VO CO
, — I ^ 'M
03 CO z:
03 03 .
rH tH to
t>*iO-<-<03COThCOt*a><SDsH
OvOiHr-t— I— <,-4»OvOvOCMtO
eo CO CO CO CO CO CO
O — I 03 ■«*< CO
to CO to CO to
CO CO
vO CO l> oo o
to CO to CO vO
CO
flj Ctf eg rO
<a5 »o
to <a0 to
-<} <1 «<}
^ rO nO
03 vO eg O vO
^ CO CO C-
^ r>- i>-
030— •■'ePCMCQ'CPVOtOVOCOC^r-QOWJOa
vOCOtDtOtO'aStOtOtOtOCOtDCOtOtOtO
03C303^C3(MC?30303^„^03 „ ^ 5S
> ^ t> (> {►
C»0»H-«5H<NcO“THvOtOvOCOI>-b-00^04'<»OOr-t'i-(03‘o?'co'eO’*i<vOtO'??
vOeOtDtOtO'aOtOCOtOtDCOtDCOtO^COOh-C-t-t-t-t'-t-t-t-C-t-I^
■ ^
41.1
206
Conspectus of Text-Units
Conspectus of Text-Units
207
M M « W
l-H * VH • * i
> > > ^
gq ifl, CN
. - »OiOO»OCOi»
«o <J -<a^ <J
*<
c- t- oo oo
O O O O
CO CO CO CO
CS . C5 C5
O O : O O
CO CO CO CO
CQ 05 (rS
M 05 bJ ^
rl m ee
/-M
rn ^ rrs ^
C> b3 o O
' 03 CO CO CO ■
CO CO CO CO
C5 o £M ^
. tH C3 04 cq CO CD
t— ‘ i> q6 CO od
O CO CO to CD CO to
OO-rHCaiOiOCOtOCM
oddddoddS
»o CO ^
. CO CD T-I t-4 1—1 UO
* d >o d lO ud CD
CO CO CO CO CO to
to CO <t© CD CO
CD CO (;0 ^
. uD »Q t- CO C55
• d d d d d d
• lO VO iO VO »0 «0
. lO vO !>■ t«* CO C55
05 C5 d 05 C5 C5 T-<
l> t- t- t- t- t-
CM • CO CO
OO - CO CO
CO • CO CO
•^•cHvOCO •C0c0r-C0<5>05
•COCOOOCO *00 00 00 00 00 00
•SOCOCOCO ‘COCOCOCOCOSO
-.-^THOicO’^voeoc'-
^050>C505Cn05tr*
OO CO CO CO CO CO OO
o (M O O tx
QOCD'r-Jir-iHT-CCMCO'^VOt'-
^^^THTHCMtMCMCMCMe^CMeMeMCMSOiO^ICMCOCO
COCOCOOOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO^ lOCpCOcDtO
^ *<1 <1
CO'«:i<vOCOI>'COO>0
C<ieO'!tlvOCOI^* <^00050
0a05C»C»CJ5Q505»OOOOOOOOrtiOO
CM(N©3CMI(?3I01CNCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO rtCOCO
CO CO etc CO OO
CO ^ c^
— rH (»
,00 CO p
vg88 $9 . ... ...
Tsa9 90 79 58 140 (153) ... ... 189 bed
V5 90 91 80 59 ... 271 ......
208
Conspectus of Text-Units
Conspectus of Text-Units
209
M H Vi
H M M M H M
M Vi M M
Vi Vi M Vi M
Vi Vi H M
^ rQ
o o
CO CD O
<1
g iiT>
CO
(X)
<1
!
©a
CD
CO TjJ o Oi Ci
HK rj5
CO CO CO CO CO
nD r£i
O
CO
CO CO
‘■^
rO n:j'
cii o
i>- i>
tH »-<
CO CO
O CO 0 CO
Tf< -<*l
CO CO CO CO
^ 't:
.
'^T rft .
. ^
kO) ^ •
. . CD !
' ■<*< 5D
’ CO CO
^ o
. . ^ .
Nw'
.
^ ,
. . .
. pO tJ
•
CO GO CS ■
. . o •
• OO 00
^ CD *
' ' CKI *
CO
• tH <!-•
CO CO
CO
pQ
^ rci ^
c3 O CD 3
HO lO ^
Tii ^ ^ rcJ
tH Cw
’ 00 05 Oi
^
T-i -t!f< 05
OaiHVOCOTHOiOtHDliM’^tO
<v>s •vM ’«!4+
w 03 CO rfj lO
CD CD CD CD CD CD
t- *> l> l>
CD CD CO to
t* l> l> t»
OO
'
M,—
F~
CM
• • o
05
(M
'5i<
50
tH
<M
S3 •
. . CM
00
ymi
tH
tH
1-4
tH
(M
(M
ym4
50
00
I ! (M* I
I ; CO
<M
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
t|5
l'”
tp.
l>
L--
t-
t>
t-
t-
t-
I>
i>
5+4
Cd
D
03
CO CO 't -tit
C<J^
•
• O'
* CD
<D
o o o o
CD
• eo
• CD
• Td< * • * ’ ♦
CO
CO CQ CO CO
tH
* 50
t
* 50
rH W T-< r-l
>-✓
<35
. o
. CO . * . .
. . , . . ^
03 <W -Cjj
iH
• t-
. {M
00
.
, tH . , . , ,
. oi • • • • •
00
T-i
Tfi TiH 'Sli -liH
r}! tH tH
ri tH r-< rHI
® O t4 ■ ■ --.
CO CO CO CO
^ 5D CD !>>
• 'ri< -rji tJ? ««d5
• Tji
oa CO
t>
CO t> CO
D- i> e'-
en)
c-
iO «0
05 05 »0
-?}< 00 05 o
CD cy> <35 o
tK tHI
C- O
««J< r-l
tH i-< (M (N <M
00 CO CO 00 QO
rH 'cH
‘ ©a CO 50
CO 00 OO CO
•■ T|» Xf<
CD ^ O o CO
O O t-- t> o
JM J J tH
§ s
'■f
O T-l IM (M CO -cf*
W t* tH 'iH tH
■ -3^ ■ ■ ■
50 CO CD
' l> tH I>
'«i<'ti<iOtDI>l>00C5O5tHTH
50 D CO OS
O O <M <N
T-< CO CO
D-C0O05Or-{'H<?aC0'«!i<
OOcoO'-iT-fCOTHtHT-H
■rH'rHCO't-<T-(iHCOTH tHtH
OJ >0 CO
CO T-t CO
CO r-( CO
^ CO CO M CO CO CO
C» CO ^
. ^
CO CO CO CO
Edgeiton, Pancatantra, 11
14
345 39. IS 485 . 74.9 76.12 | ... 34.23
Conspectus of Text-Units
oo o •-*<
(M CO CO * CO
^ ^ ^
oo CO CO giij
ca iO CO _
cococowMeoftDO>05
tO »0 lO ^ wo ‘O
COCOCOCOCQCOCOCOCO
* xi( •«!»< •«ii<
* t> C- l> t-
iOiOCDTHT-jTHr-403COCOl^
tH tH 1-4 T-J tH (N CM* C<J c4
cocococococococococo{>
CftC»i-iTHiHC<JCO'<ij'*:HvqcD
Id** io o lO »n »o id >o' >>
tHtHtHi— (iHt— tr-iT-<THT-l
.tOL>-l>.0OCO ‘ODOOtO •i0 01>C-t>-COCO*0«D
-OOQOOpOpOp *QpOOQOCR» -cno>C5C»C3SOOOO
-OSO>C5C»C3sboOO
COl7QOCJaO»-<CMeO'«HiOCOI>OOCr>OTHWCO'«d<lOtOcOt-fCO
■-d<'«^<*^-d^iO»OU3iO»QiOiO»OiOlO«£>COCOCOOCOeOr-<<X)i-tCO
COeOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOeOCOCOCOCOCOr-tCOiHICO
(698.
Conspectus of Text-Units
,o;o^toCOOOOOQOCOCO
£r Jr gr CO CO CO CO
«0 CQ CQ
fi p< p«
, o ^ «
ȣ5 c3 ^>
' b- O l>
CO
^ CO rcJ
i Cj rrj O
' Cl O o
CW 0> CO
CO CM CO
rD nc!
oS o e;!
CD O CS
. 'tS
. O ^
• ^ <D
lO 2 t*
. O CO
r-tT-(v~<O^Cl<MTHCOlkOCO
CO' OO CO Co' CO CO ^ S xO
COCOOOC>DC»C»CO'^'^CO
oa CO
W t-4 tH T-<
'--^’^'-^^00 ca 05 wo
a a a a
$ S B B 00
ja^jQ_D<5a<3905 ^
00 CO CO 00
t** l>
l>l>*I>CCQ0CR»OC0t>-50
jjOiOkO^OiOiOiOrHr-JkO
O T-1 CO 'cH
09CaT-tir-i-r-(irHT-»eOI>*C0
<M
eOCOCOCOCOCOCOr-lf-<'«#i
ODcaoco^oiovo- OiHoa
(7J<MCOCOCOCOCOT“J'r-^uOt>COr-<^r-J
odcoododododcooscioacjscaoscscxj
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO
ir!
o
QO CO GO
^ ^
^ ^ tO
c3 CM JM
* T CO CO
eo
^ rQ
ej O ce ‘o‘
^ rO
. , «3
• • O ‘C5 05
• * t- ^
'w' N—'- Vw/-
, ^ iTSl O nd
^ . Cfi © CM CM
• • CO /MK
M s? ^
CO
~~ ro' h ^
O M)
o 1-1 !>» fO ^
rij S ce
05 o no CM ^
^ ^ o ©
O O CM CO 05
o '2 '5' ^
cc 45 y O
<S th
'X o ^
S2. ^ ce^
« "o Pj xC^
- :S ^
« i w ^
en CO CO
03 rjj os'
CcT to lO CO
l> t>* !>. t-
iotocooqoo^HTH^''e'aT-<^covocoi>;
id td >o td tea xo io‘ th xco i® 55 5g $g
OOCOCOCOOOCJOCO •COCOOOQOCOQOCO
t- . T-( Dl OQ
.THC^COvOiOOa-i-iTHr-l
* T-i CM <M ©i ci 03 (M CM CM
'OOCaDQOQOCOCO COQOOO
^ CM ^ lO eo C5
* Til XA Tji <1^ »d
. *LJ O 1— ( CM r-c
. w T-J T-< TH -J
* ^ (M i-( °2
(*4 CO « c® w
<0C0t>*CT»C0000505OT-(rHCMCM©ae0
tOtOtOiOtOtOiOtOCOCOCDCOCOCOCO
lOlOxOtOiOxOtOtOvOiOtOiOtOtOtO
T-({WC0'^tOCOI>>I>*
'cH'^tOOtT.tr.CO-r-CY-l-p-fiHrHT-CT-CT-C
TiCrJC^Ti<*ciCTS#Tf<d1-^
-cJC'^rH'^'ctC'TiCTfTiC-^
t4< ^ Til TiC ^
’TjC Tf T^
K^OtHCMcO’^^tOCOtOCOt'-
pC505Ct5C35C5C5CP>CM(Ma5
OCOCOCOCOCOCOCOt-<T-lcO
t<50C50r-ICMCO-TH»OCOI>C0050'MCM
05C5OOOOOOOO’^OOtH^^
OC0C0'ct<'TttTiCTi<T-HTj«-^TilC'i!jCTi<T:iCTiCT4C
Conspectus of Text-Units
213
K M
K K M M 5^ H
W H M H
H i< H X H 'A
!A
tH
Cft
CO
CO t- t- 00 Ca r-J
»£5 lO U3 »d JO ift
05 (M CN (M (M
iH CO t- CO O
oa iH »-< T-J tH CM
»f3 lO JO id 1.0 \d
<M tN OJ (M <M <?l
lO CO t- w
«e rO
^ PCJ
^ o ^
TS ^ ^
00 o 00 00
no
ca
>0
jO
:
:
c;
<M
00 *
O
l>
55-
o
pO
rtS
tH
pO
d
CO
o
pCl
d
aO
CO
CO
«0
cd
CO
CO
rd
*
*
00
ai
CO
CD
CO
*-»
CO
eo
CO
CO
CO
00
«a
CO
W
CO
CO
CO
(d
d
OO
icj
11^
o
rO
t>
‘
nnj
pD
00
pQ
•o
d
tH
pD ’
o
ca
pQ
o
d
05
d
CO
tH
CD
CD
ro
00
OO
i-
cS
o
tH
OO
CO
rO
nd
t-
l[>
tH
O
t-
o
00
00
tH
CO
iH
t)
rH
tH
»
tH •
tH
CO
tH
tH
CO
CO
,0 i-cJ pO ^ ^ ,o
, «C O e3 O ixi
’ lO JO CO CO CO
’ ^ ^ 00 ^ 00 00
•t3 d ^ no
0 0 0(0
oa ^ O
CO CO ^
CO CO
TS
o ^ rcs
A «J «0 CO
'I# lO wo $2
00 00 CO ^
00 p® C3 ^
“I c3 OD t>
00 ^ CO
“ 00 ^ co^
g5 -w^ d w
o
ria
eS ,-j
W CO
^ 05
CO
Pi j CO
o
oa
^ ^ ^
'Cl tH (id ^
t«- <S> ^ eS t-4
CO O O g
00 ^ CO 2
PH ® -I
CO
OO era
CD ed
CO DO
t-COOaOrH ClCOiOtDCOOO
■*-jT-<T-j0lG'5C0C0T-Jp-^T-<j'iHTHiHl
CDCD«dcdcdt^l>t^b^t^t»t^t>
CODOCOCOQOOOOOQOOOaOOOOOOO
C5 05 DJ w CO oa T-J
00 CO CO CO 00
00 OO OO CO CO 00 CO
tH
05
05
05
(?5
CO
05
t>
oa
o
* ^
O
(J5
05
CO
i
CO
h!
^ ;
* hH
■tK
00
CO
CO
00
CO
CO
00
CO
_ e« «HH r«J
tH rH
QO GO 00
JO ao
T-I -H
id ad
>
ffic^coCMicococoeoco
sii* cip ^ cip vIIp vii'
CO |>
oaoarHdS'^'’^'^'^'^
{NCMCO{j;|COCOCOeOCO
t>- !?• CO 00 era
oa 0> oa ca oa
i> t>> t> tr« »
CO
CD CO
ao lO
lO »0 00 00
CO CD •»“( CD
JO aO tH »D
oa oa o O
CO CO i>
aO vO jO >0
05COOacraOO'^(?5
JN-Cooocooaoaoaoa
lOaOaOaOiDjOaOaO
eo
oa
aO
eo 'rjf «<# kO aO
oa oa oa CR oa
aO jO aO aO aO
ad jO ^
^
O
w
U<4
CO ^ o
■»H -iH ^
1# PH 'g
H
CO
. • OJ
jO aO tH
tH tH CO ’CH
CO oa oa th th tH tH
DI CO JH
* ' H td
"cH WO CD t» !>•
aO CO
W rH
H
l> b. CO
tH P tH
^ o Hh
s
CfX
«H
OaO'-O^CO'^aOtor-OOOaO OtHOqcOHi^«jjO«Ot>
tHC5C5C5<MCMO5CMff5<?aC<ICO,rtC0eQC0l»>«5>C0““
214
Conspectus of Text-Units
M
■3
H
X
M
X
X
X
•
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
f
(M
t>
CO
05
CO
CO
-cH
\a
t-
00
oo
00
C35
■H
tH
tH
CO
rH
03
TT
03
tH
M
CJS
CO
o
*
O
o
o
o
O
<D
o
d
d
r-i
rH
tH
CO
CM
CM
-¥
cd
K
s
Tfi
rfi
'cH
t-
c-
t-
tx
lx
lx
t-
GO
It
IX
00
tx
CQ
<♦-5
o
•rl
■isi -a^
<1 <J -elj
<
e3
rx3
rQ
d
nd
pQ
M
ca
CO
fcT
o
CO
•
Cs
CO
05
CO
•w-
"o'
05
00
o
09
^cT
o
05
no
U
O
05
00
d
O
05
'w-'
r-l
09
nd
•
o
—4
05
d
CM
<35
‘
;
CO
00<
w
00
o
IX}
«}
.09
00
09
oo
-O
rcJ
o
pQ
nd
o
,
cn
CM
CO
O
05
•
ej
V
*
CO
,
.
.
■HI
Sil
00
CO
90
*
90
CO
CO
CO
CO
e<5
eo
xH
•Hi
xji
xH
ec
•tf
*s
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
—
o
pQ
nO
o
nd
o
no
<0
C3
C3
rO
«3
rH
rQ
V
nO
H-l
.10
rO
o
.
d
XI
nd
,
O
CM
c4
(M
o
Cli
•Tii
•O
cj
O
d
o
o
c?
05
CM
CO
05
05
-f
■Hi
90
CO
CO
CO
00
CM
nd
o
*
05
a>
05
r-<
05
05
05
<35
<35
05
05
o
tM
o
tH
tH
tH
*
t-4
uA
o
*c3
tH
iH
1—1
tH
tH
rH
05
05
r-l
O
o
IN
"o'
o
f-1
CSJ
0^
lO
tH
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
<M
'hI
CM
CM
CO
r-«
CM
CO
90
00
00
05
rH
tH
05
tH
CO
C-
d-
ed
hJ
•
ud
CO
CO
to
CO
CO
CO
CD
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
*
o
CO
d
o
05
05
05
eo
05
09
05
05
<35
05
05
C35
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
o
rH
o
rH
(ji
CO
05
.
...
.
_____
<N
1—1
eo
oo
O
o
o
OO
00
00
—9
«Hi
lx
o
o
CM
C3
CO
ar>
rH
•»H
CM
T-i
05
rH
CO
IX
<35
tH
T-i
w
rH
-
•
tH
rH
00
00
od
00
05
od
00
05
O
O
tA
r-l
T-<
T-I
T-i
tH
rH
rH
(N
CM
cd
cd
OQ
00
00
OO
CO
<x>
oo
00
CO
05
05
05
05
C35
a
05
05
05
05
05
<35
C3
05
<35
<35
t-— N
■O'
N
s
cn
CO
-'sH
"S'
»5^
o
tH
CM
s.
CM
T-J
fH
*
T-I
-H
t-4
N
<N
tH
rr
tH
tH
CM
CO
<35
05
*
VH
0»
05
*
OS
05
05*
05
T-i
tH
*
d
*
90
90
90
CO
CO
CO
cd
cd
cd
M
6
c5
40
iS
90
90
»o
9^
90
90
90
'w'
C>
90
w
W
o
o
,
rH
w
CM
.
•Hi
40
CO
o
rH
CM
•rt
tH
«
1
r-l
tH
1
•
T"^
•
rH
r-t
1—1
<N
OM
CM
•
lx
l>
<35
o
•
05
•
1
1
05
05
CJ
1
*
<35
CO*
tw
cd
cd
cd
cd
xH
■Hi
#
t-
t-
t>
C-
lx
OD
00
00
00
00
00
CO
00
CO
P
o
C0
l>
t-
tr-
oo
oo
05
o
§
rH
03
CO
CO
CO
o
It
t-
CO
0-<
0»
•
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
o
O
o
o
o
o
CM
o
o
•
O
m
»o
>o
50
iO
»o
iO
90
90
to
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
rH
CO
CO
CO
o
T-i
IN
CO
50
CO
tx-
IX
Ml
oo
to
'Sjl
05
T-<
to
r-l
CD
r-l
5
46.1
CO
CO
CO*
r-i
CO
i
T-(
l>
Tif
H
>— 1
rH
r-i
00
1—1
r«i
00
<N
rH
CO
CO
rH
CO
rH
tN
00
r-i
CM
CO
rH
CM
00
129
5
A 89
136
rH
O
<35
Q
<j <J
CO cn o th
m
G0C»O'r-f«yC<lC0'^tCS501>'C00005O
Oir5tOLOiOiOtO>0<MtOCO
8?
Conspectus of Text-Unite
215
X X ^ H
X X O' X
XXX
^
— —
~
■
to
lO
CO
tH
CO
t-
oo
rH
GO
c»..
H
CO
05
CO
o
tr-
CO
tH
-!H
'. !
OO
05
• cys
;
CM
tJt
CO
: 1
c-
’ t-
CO *
c-
t-
t-
00
. .
00
• O
. !>•
Oi
t>
<5>
, to
vO
a
- <4
05 .
<
to
CO
05
05
CH
sy
OS
CH
O
o
fife
00
o
tH
tH
CO
CO
^ I . I , » 'Xjl . . . .
o ns es O ^
’t-ithw. .ca
ooo *o
<M CM CM ‘ ‘ ‘ (N ;
O 1-1
|>>Oir-<r-tt-.OOOOa(M’^
CT s
O ^ T-l l>
C0»O<31i-rH^-r-l S<WCn»<MO
CO ^ fi^ CO ^ CO
T-t OO
CO tH irH CM CO CO tH
S g
•s
tH tH r««
M
g CO CO
cw
o
IM
CM
• •
tH
<M
CM
(M
rHi
CD
OS
o
l> •
• <M
tH
W
lO •
• CO
w
^
00
OS
CO
05
CO
OS
OS*
<35
«>
CO
l>
co
CO
CO
l>
CO •
♦ • OS
. . at
; 05
05
d
o
CO
CO
o ’
o
• OO
• CO
o
o
30
CO • * * • * t •
M-l
tH
tH
o
(??
tH
CO
lO
o
tH
-tH
OO
CM
P
' 00 C5> or>
■ ooo
- CO CO to
CM CM CM
■ an uo
■ tH (M
, CO y-(
CO tso 0> t- CM OS
CM (M (M CM CO CM
' CD tH CD tH «0 tH
O t-* CM
CO CO CO
tH CD T-4
<M 50 ^ tH ^
CO CO CO CO -tH
w
tH tH
CO CO
05 05
-4] -<t{
^ tH
o g TH
10*^10
CO -!H
^ MO
t-< Hlj ■*“» -<J tH tH
CMC0'tHiDOt-^flSIC0-HiOe£><0t^t-C000050SOOtHtHCM<MC0e9t!H'«t»5«l
co«Dcococococoeococofiococcco«DeotDco»>‘''#t-'-tHt-^i>*trtT'*T''^
TH'tH'tH’tHtHTHTHTHt-fr-lr-l-tHtH-tHHHtH'tHtHrHtH’^TH-tH^'^THHHtHtH
1> ^
476 ! A 100 640 1.1 I ... 102.11
216
Conspectus of Text-Units
:§2o^oHHriai=iriHaari
CO CO CO
i;© to CD
CO CO CO
r® rtlllj rO rO ^ ^
p3 o o3 o
’•ej) tH lO lO
CO CO CO ■' CD
CO 00 CO *4.; CO
W W (M ^ CO
t-D-QOt^OOOOOOQO
'COOWOCOOCOO
oo . CO r:
o O 00 rH
^ O CO O
^rd^nOrDTS Oco
OlORjOdOC^^^g
iOnOCOtOl^C-OOCOCO
OOOOOOOOOrcs
05 <M (M O-l OJ Ol Cl Ol oa 05
o -H CO Tt< «0 CD
COCDOO»-'r-(t-4-rHYHrHT>H
ccJodododcdcJococdcdoo
oooooooooo
THTHrHrHT“<rHr-lT-(T^T-t
O t- CO
kO 50 lO
CO T-K CO
_ »0 _ CO
o c» o o o
rf »0 T-i CO
'tj<'d<iO(y?cDi>-
O »0 vO lit) lO lO
CD CO CO Of) CO CD
05 O O CM CO CO
iH tH CN w ca (N tH
t- 00
l>
r-l T-l
cocoeocOcOcO'^’4!<<'H<
»0i0i0>0»0i0i0»0»0
0500*Ht-(v^05CO^iOCOI>00050
r-iOCO»OaO*^OOOOOOtX>OOGOOOOOC5
ts152 I 161 I ... . I 894 384 210 | cf. 367 (114) j A 80
Conspectus of Text-Units
217
O<MC0im^c005OC0c0
{Nc^WOTucacf^cowco
vcjioionri^xdvooxd
^ re:? nd
flj o o «g
^ CO Tf< iO
^ ^ r-i T-i
(M CM (>a oi
nd
O .Q re!
.X> ej O t-
40 CO CD
lO CO “ r- CO
00 CO oo Ci 00 CO
o CO CO O CO CO
~ CO .
CO C5S CO
O CO o
THT-!WC0rH<M(M 05 CO
C-- tH r-J r-J r-j oa {N 03 , CM Ol irH !M
OOOOOOOO *0000
CO CS O t- ^ O
COCOCDTHCO‘<i<l>
-H -H CO rH CO W CO
WiHlMcO'^-?*)»Ot>OOCJ>C&OOr-IC«ilCM
i>i>-cpooQOcooo
!OCOCOCOCDcOCOCDCOCOCOCOCOCOtOCO
OCMC0THrH>0O<0<Ml>'r-(
rHCOCO - COCOtHCO •COW
•< to -<q VO <1
40 iO CO t- 00 CO
’T}<OO^^l£r*OCOCOl>r-QOCO^C31 O^<MC0'^40c0r-C0cSJOT-IC«C0’*J<
C5*040CR\Ov00540cy>40C» k-OOOOOOOOOOOt-* — tHT-i-H
jj7'^'»040»Oi0 4C5040»0 ^ lO »0 »0 *0 lO 40
' ' wws'^cocQ w c® Q
fcr ^ ^ fcr ^ t* ^
'w' 'w' iJJ
46.5
^nstroc j T I I 8P I N n H II Spl I Pij I So I K? I Sy I Ar I
218
Conspectus of Text-Units
t«5 H M H
OtHCOTj<-5i<»0«Dt'-05iM<?qiCOtOO t£)
''<oco«£jcDcd«x>':oo<dcDtocoo«x>2®
CO CO i£a t-r a> ^
rH OI (M CO
r— c- r-
co eO CO CO
o
^ 01 ^ T3
cj W bj O
00 po
■r-t »-< r-t
{N " M <M
QO
5 2 /-s ffl
»-< r-t O “
M <M Od ^
^ rQ - n:^
(M O eU ^
03 ^ rcJ
oooooooo
AN tH CO t-; CO
O T-< r-f T-4 ir-<
©OrHiOI>»**|T-<rHr-4 .ANrHCO'cJJ^
uoiovoio^iraioio •iOid ^ocDtococD
oooooooo - OO - OOOOO
W-rHT-JTHT-t-HT-ii-J r-<r-< tHt-ItHtHtHI
CO CO »0 CO 00 O
rH • tH
eocoab’^’si»»ocococoi>ooo>o>00--'»-<<M<fdeo
c50o6cooooocioeocoop<»co«ocooja>0500"^j<o
eDCDCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCDCOCOCOCOtDCOCO-r><CO
h- t- 00 ca o O
o> O CR oa o O
O CO CO O t- l>
OtHth (Ncoco 00 ooa
®dc0 •CO'^CO<OI>0OO»t-1t-<'HI ♦iHTHf-»COT-t tHtHtHCO^vO
OcOt^cOOaOT-iCMCO-^xOeot^OOOOTHOdCSCoHisHiOCOlr-OOO
r!!^'^’^'^’Zl^^‘?2‘^'^‘’^®*®^®deMCOCOCOiOCO >t,COCOCOCOCOCO
I0i0i0»0k0i0i0»0i0l0v0i0»0ii0i0i0i0»0»-I»c >-'OfcOiO»OiCO
Conspectus of Text-Units
219
M
H
H
H
H
W
H
M •
. . ^
w
• «
w
CV. }Kj
• W
H
H
CO
50
t-
<35
0
C3
50
<35
iH
rH
50
to
. D3
. 00
CO
c»
»C5
rH
T-t
VM
T-l
01
03
03
05
CO
C<3
, • 00
CO
CO
• rH
00
50
CO
, <}
t-
t— *
r-’
t-:
l>
* ■
0
• 0
0
0
0
CO
rH
'■if
'if
rH
rH
rH
rH
rH
rH *
rH
•
tH
. t-K
w
• --rH
00
r- 1
o
r£3
eS C?
00 <35 oa
r- * !>• t~
CO CO CO
o
^ ^
^ CO CO CO
50
■ <0
9S
<0
CO
03
03
<35
0
CO
03
n3
0
; ; ixj
03 !
CO ...
03 ...
CO
CO
fs»
<M
(M
r£2
0
CSI
. .
03
t-
CM
n3
0
CO
r-t
CO
C3
CM
05
03
CO
03
; * 03
J ‘ ‘
,
CM
CM
O <M
05 T-< r-< tH
<M* ®4 oi <?i
^ -5H «0
’r~<-!HT-<T-*C0>#CDO<0
{Wi oi W CO CO CO CO CO CO
05 O O '»*I
^ 05
l>- oo o
O O t4<
lO to t- 00
l> l> l> l>
O O O O
Tfl CO l> 05
T-J rH CO CO
<«:jJ vO »0 50
lO l> 00 00
(ci oi ci im’
CO CO CO CO
'sS 50 l>
o o o o
l> c» t> c-
CO <35 05
o o o
t> t-» t>
*> ^
»-<
CD 00 00
j> t-.
lO lO
WCMCO*^
<35 C r-< tH tH t-H I> C5 tH
t>‘ H l> t> »> 00 00 00* OO 00 00
50 jj^5O5050‘0l0 5O5OiC>lMC55O
o
CQ
3S
00 ^
- 5.
. — ^
CO
""Sltt tH tH vO t-H
OtHCMCO O^IOCO
5D 50 50 50 0 50 5050
OO05OT-<C<lCO't}< OxOcOOC'*
'!!t<'^»050i05050rrl**'^^'^
50 50 50 50 50 50 50 05O5OtHiO
^ m ^
00 03 eo oa O ^
*Q CO CO lO so <SD
50 w TK 50 *0 iH
220
Conspectus of Text-Units
M
=rc
sssc
w
w ^
X
H
X K
X
X
X X
X
H
X
X
X
X
O d
Tjl
yH
CO
CO •'!H
50
CD
05 C5
tH
d
eo
»I0
t-
00
05
tH rH
Y-t
CM
d
d d
d
d
d d
eo
CO
CO
CO
OO
o>
o>
05
05
05 05
05
05
05
05 05
05
05
05 05
05
05
C?5
05
o
CQ
Th
t}<
xil
■tdi
tH
t(4
Cm
ZJ
*
a
^ T
1
1
1
I
^ I
o
■« 1
rP
I
;
1 :
1
1 ;
;
1
i
o'
t
CO
ao
Bj
rP
o3
CO CJ
uo
GO
CO
Td
o
ei .
no
o
pO
rd
O
nd
tH
00
no ^
o
«D .
»
CD
tr*
l>
b-
00
O 00
no
oo
00 *
*
no
CO
ft
00
OO
eo
UQ
CO
Tf<
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
OO
CO
CO
o
'xi
,ja n:!
rO
rrJ
rO
)— 1
o
*
ei
o
o
o
w
d
CO c<
Bj
o
50
nS
nS
b-
CD
o
CO
CO
.
00
CO
00
CO
05 05
CO CO
CM
d
'Cf*
^ 3
tH
rtt
s «
tM
t)
50
■Yfl
CD
CD
'Sfl
d
tH
d
ca
d
d
CM CM
(M
CM
d
d
d
d
CJI
IM
05
o
M CO
CO
d -sH
'cH
50
O tH
g
h-i
r-f
w
CJ (M
<M
CM
r-< tH
lH
Y-l
d d
d
T-l
d
CO
cys
&
Tjl
Tjt
'<d<
lO lO
iO
50
50 lO
50
50
tD
CO
o-
CD
to
tH
T-t
yH
M M
r-H
tH
T-*^ YH
yH
tH
^ tH
yH
Y-l
tH
'tit
tH
w
w
Y-l
T-f Y-(
W
r-4
ttH yH
tH
yH t-<
tH
tH
yH
tH
Y-l
tH
M
M
CO
00
O M
CM
CO 'cjt
50
CO
Y-< yH
CO
CO
-r^
iH
Y-l
CM d
d
d
T“j tH
T-t
T-l
d d
d
d
d
CO
Til
CD
00
Ph
CO
00
od
CO
GO GO
«
GO
05
05 05
05
05
05* 05
(35
05*
O
O
Y— 1
cS
o
CO
o
O
o
O
O O
O
o
O O
o
o
o o
O
O
yH
r*l
•tH
y-H
yH
■yH
tH
tH
M
Y-t
yH
1H M
Y-t
yH
Y— 1 tH
yH
Y-l
yH
Y— 1
Y-l
T-l
k-t
:
;
: ;
:
• ;
•
Ml
a
;
•
* •
;
: :
:
• ]
‘
M
M
to
to
to
to
t'- oo
05
05
05
o ^
yH
yH
Y-l d
CO
CO
-bH
Til
50
b-
111
d
d
d
CM
<M d
CM
d
•
d
CO CO
CO
CO
CO CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
eo
CO
CO
00
i>
t-
t>
b-
b-
*
t-
b>» b»
b«
t—
b* b-
b-
t-
b-
b»
b*
b-
t-
*
lO
»o
<M T*l
o
M d
CO
tH
TH 50
CD
b-
b*
CO
M
d
d
M
»o
oo
Y~(
M M
yH
yH
Y-l Y-»
yH
Y-l
Y— 1
yH
CO
!>
CO
00
to
H 1
ca
d
d
d d
d
d
s
o
d d
d
d
d d
d
d
d
d
Y-l
Y-l
yH
Y-l
tH
tH
b-
Y-t
(
uO
iO
to
CD
to to
to
to
to
to to
CD
CO
tS> CO
to
CO
CD
CO
CO
CO
o
o II
>“
w
Sh.,;
d
CO
rj<
*o
CO b-
CO
05
o
M
d CO
50
CD b-
CO
05
o
yH
50
d
«+-»
CO
tJI
CO
O
to
to
CO
CO to
to
to
b-
b-
b<. M
b-
b-
b- b-
b-
t-
CO
00
CD
00
o
00
00
<£>
W f-
§ O
JO
uo
>o
vO
U3 »Q
to
lO
50
*o
50 50
50
50
50 50
50
50
50
yH
50
50
50
8‘-5!
to
M
0}
1
sss
SS3SSS
>■
>■
Conspectns of Text-Units
221
H H
H X
X X X X X X
<30 .
QO q
00
Cs ^ ^ ^ O
00 ^ ^ ^ C5
<}
* <1
d
eo
CO CO ^
CO CO ^
CO
»o
as O -:}< O l- oo t-
lO CS> CO lO 00 OS o r!
COcOiHOaOlOJCOCOCOCOtM-^tNIMCOTtf
T-4rH ta T-HT-tri^-J tH t-<
CO CO
CO CO CO S CO <?« <M
tH T-i ^ Tt<
T-< tH irt 'g tH
-H
<D
»o
o
00
, . I^-
CO CO t-
lO »o ^
tH CO 1H CD CO
« CO
00 . CO CO OS
lO »-( lO »o
Cp CO CO CS
^ rfl
t- l> tr- t-*
• o CO ca CO
♦ lOsOt-t-
. T-J T-< l> c-*
OOCOC5»-<0<MCOCOCOTH*i<05CO
W^t>L'-<MCO(54Ca<NO^OO<MQOCO
sO CD CO
(» CM CO
<4 <1^
QOOOSOl'-
CO CO cO t- GO
-H uO t-h tH »0
CO Oi
GO GO
lO «o
{M 05 CO
t- Cft l-
W «3 tH
lO CO CO l^-
^> C9 I— I**
tH «D tH T-f
> {>
X >■
1 ^
iO gH
’o
O
222
Conspectus of Text-Units
fl<IC0'^'tHrf<i0c0t>0000050SOOr-iT-t
<iC>
M) tH CO t©
H ftsT ▼-I rH
O CO
T-<<^;cO'rJ<CO»HCO»qQqCftrH*-<
CO'«JH-^'?^-!j<ri<>JO»0»OvdiiOiCSvOCO
OdCi)C^C!!3C)C>CI>O>03O>0)(nO>Cft
O rQ
^ ^ ^
tM CM (M
CfJ 05
CO CO
• rcJ
* - , rd Xi O
eg pQ O 03 pQ
.Q000000500T-4iM
,0»OU3wOeOCOCDCO
S «; g ce
<1 s
•s ^
•<J
, l> 00
^ CO lO r-(
§ ^ CO cd .
^ cr> 05 05
^ ^ ^ —
«4W ^ ^ ^ CN
nO
O
pQ
pQ .
. • o •
• pQ
• eS
: .* *
! eg
• eg
’ 3
CO
to
^ .
I yH
• iO
'• 50
’ 05
I
05
. ‘ (05 .
• 05
. 05
CO
CO
CO
CO
e+-J
’ pQ no .* pQ o
o3 O eg pQ >ti
. lO ^ . CO CO t> C5
. CO CO . CO eo CO 50
CM <M CO O CO
iOC0C0T~(Wr-t<M(M(MOaO5
■•HCO _0t>»t-050r-l
05 05t-(CMt-^ xOCOl^T-jT-lTHtHCMoao
^^l>^^^^cd^•ododGdcldodQdo6Gdcd'^
cDTHtdcdcdcdcdcdcDcdcdt^i>t>i>^cdi>»ododGdcidodQdo6Gdcd'^
iM CMCNlO«CI(3aO»<NOI(NCMCN(yiC<l<N (NCM(M{N0qC3CSI01(NW
r~<r*<^THrHT~('r-lrHTH T— t r-l T-H r-( i— < T-( -pH tH r- ♦ tH rH iH ■*— I pH t*"
T-<iHT-i<M03(M(M<M(Ne0C0
CDCOCDOCOCOCOCO
tH 05 05 T-t *-<
T-^ T-J 05 CM Ol CO
CO CO CO CO CO
00 00 OO CO
CM 04 CM CN
05 O O w
T-c (M CM CM
lt>00Q00005O05(MC0'«!t<’<J<i0<0C0 OOOtMCM
1>I>I>'I>I>.OOOOCOOOOOCOOOCOOO(M0505050505
• (M CO CO
‘ 05 05 05 05
• «> C- l> l>
ioc-oogooOth.
•^»OwOCOC005i-<('THiHT-«tpHr-«{MCO I— OOr-lT-lTHrHCMCMCM^
* •* •* •* « •GSI • • m 0 • 0 m 0 0 tCt
i£5*0 50i050»0\0‘0»0 ^
-XlCOtDCOCOCOCOCDeOCOCOCOCOCO COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO
rHTHJMc0-TH»0Ol>00C5O^{MC0'«!H>0{MC0t>00 05O^0MC0^»0
W T-(T-(T-lrHT-(T-<oQ'^’f^TH'HCMCM<M<M<MCM
t> I>
Conspectus of Text-Units
'■m
C5 tH C?C| CO 'iCi lO CO €0 CO CO Os /VI
1-1 <?| W CO CO
o O C5 o’ O O
O O O O O O CC
1— t •« T-( tH tH r-K
•<{ <1 -=<1
T-i (N rjt
-^u'iCOOOOOOOO
T-i T-n i-H t-< 1— ( tH i-(
<1 <s <i ■<! <i <1
r-4 Tiji CO 00
GM fiM CO ro CO CO
o o o o o o
■— «f iH iH tH 1— I tH
^ <j <1^ <j <J
<
• 03
! o
• to
• 05
CO
rO
0^
trT
CO
05
CO
, . ^
I '
rQ O «
CO . CO o
: «> . os'’
. . CO
<»
re
Xi
1 re
fSi
CJ
o
o3
o
c3
e3
Xi
o
i-( 01
.
. CO
CO
>> l>
. t'-
l>
HK \0 t> CO 05
CN CN CT CN 01 T-^ c?q
CC 00 00 GO 00 05 05
OI i?l <N 54 (M fM
tH 1~l TH t-*( iH T-( T-i
to CO
O T-! CO CO 05 o 01
tOCOi-(-T-lrHTHrH(MtM
05 05 05 ososooSooooooooo
CM(MCM<M<M(MCO®^COCOCCCOCOCOCO«CCO
>r<THrHr-irHrHTH T-trHr-irtT-tWiHWi-.
1-^ iH T-1 W {?! (51 t- 05 QO C5 O 54 CN 04 iH D1 tH r-1 'sii
•«i'TH*«^'^idiCs’^iO'^’~*®^iC>iOtdcDCOCCcO^^
05 03
-1# CO 05
tJ t-I l>*
1—1 U'4
01 ^ "rji I
oi 04 05
^ ^ ^ CO 05
Cfc O o’ o
«1# ^ ^ ^ ^
t> OC Cfe CD D-
o
lO
to O
o'
cjs
iH r><
* tH
CO
1— (
CO
so
^ tci
■ t.o
to
sc
CD
CD
00
CO
CO
CO .<4 CO
' CO
CO
CO
CCS
CO
05
o
■TH to
. ^
tr^
00
ao
o
00
tH
(N
Q\ ^ T-l
ri
1— t
T-<
rH
rH
04
CO
CO
CO ^
• ^
tK
T-i
t— 1
■rt 5^ ri
th
rH
r-i
rH
eo
^4
O
co • Ti< lO CO
to
05 05
l> t-
to r* D- CO 04 <M
C33C505COO'*:t<tOCOT-('p-l
t> t- l> CO CO CO
• • CO rH CO 00 o
. » i-< rH iH I> tH r- i (J4
• • 00 OO 00 CO CO GO
f>J (M
Csl (5<1
o CO OO
05 C0Q005(35OC0 Or-iCM-^
eOvOiOCOOCOCO -H T-<T-lr-iT«liMCMT-t^^tO»OI>COO>r-iT-4THiH
• .i>»OOC5«»»»*««2i •••••»'•«•
COCOCDCOCDCDCD CD t'-t-t-h-C-r-OO’^OOODCOOOOOQOCOCOOO
CDCOCOCOOCDCD CD COCDOCDCOCDCD COCDcOCOcDcDCDCDCD
«DJ>C0C3O'«H(Mc0C0'^
fMCMd^CMCOeOCO KjCO 03 03 m
1> > ^ >
<MCO'«#iO«SDr-
«irfi ^ -1^1 tH
224
Conspectus of Text-Unils
QO b- cn>
«
■< ^ p
CO O iJS
(M CW . <M
do • d
CO CO * 05
«> o St CO <Ni CO
5® $2^ 00 »0 ^ 00
•SS :S2
; ^ S >« ’-! « ; O
05 05 CO !
a
' ^ ^
’ iO Ct Oi ^
iH CM tft CO lO 05
cci CM --( (M
00 CO 00
lO lO CO
CO CO T-i
00 OD
‘ C<J GO b- (M
: ^ ^ co^
^ lO «0 b- 00 . 0> O
rH T-J iH tH Ti tH ©si
•CDb-COCJ)OOOiH£MCR)
»T-»T-jTHT-<CM>O0fl04 )|tt
CO QO
CO CO «S
‘*^’^C0I>‘>^0D®®‘^
CO b- 00 C5 O
CM CM CM CO
O T~( 00 05 CM O CO
iO O tft ^ iQ r-^
^ eo
>
<Me0rf<-^»OC0b*«»0C005C01>C0C5OOiHCM
■*-< iO r- ( lO vO vO
iO«0r-i<HT-<T-<CMCOG<»<M«O
22.14 (55.10) / I I 132:11
Conspectus of Text-Units
226
OOr-lr-ltM .CftTHiOiOiO . CD t>t>»Q0 00 (35O»-^<MCJc0C0
iOiOiDifS»0 WSW3 »0>OiiDxO»OtOCOCOCOCOCOCO
tH C<J iH W «0
O O 1H r4
rH
T— ( tH W r^
-<5 <l
^ O t-4 N lO CO 32
^ iH Olr-tCJCO-rHCN W iOCOtHtHiH-tHCIItHCO^C^
. fls O ^ ^ ^ CD CO CO* CD CO CO r<r »■ I-- •'00
WTHrHTStHT-lSi'HlT-ieOY-t
• <
TJ
O
CD
rO T3
c« O
a* 05
eo CO
o
rjQ»T^
cjcp;**’'***l«<3
00^ oo' oT
........ o
<35 135 . , , . . . O rH
05 05 TijiO
CO CO rtji
no
rO
05
no
o
pQ
«s}
^ .
CJ
Xi
tJ
a
o
m
r>
o
00
no
CM
CO
<D
. . . ^
!>■
t-
CO
OS
o
nj
05
n3
o
O
00
, tH
00
CO
>»
. t-
t-
f
tf
00
0
GO
t-
. 00
: : : :
iO CO 00 05
• Oi 00 CM CM Ol (W OJ Ol CO CO
•COCOCOH^COCOCOCOCOCO
^ CO r# no 05 tH
COeOCOCOCO*H<rJfrcfi.^-<r|i>H<Ti<
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCQCOCOCOCO
CM
CM
CO
o
tH
CM
CO
o
tH
eo
to
C5>
O
cs
pH CO -Ht
(M
tH
CO
05 tH
CM
CM
D1
rH
tH
■rH
rH
tH
CD
t-H
’
’ri tH tH
CD
tH
CM
M*
(M (M
£M
CM
CM
CO
CO
CO
eo
CO
Hi<
■Hi
tH tH 'pH
tH
t— 1
tH
tH tH
iH
tH
rH
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
rH
rH
w
o*
^ QO
^ o
o
o
o
to
. . . . »0
CD
05
05
^'R
^ rH
•
00
T-^
tH
CD
oo
’ * * 1
b« ifO
l>
irt> od
CO GO
00
*
05
05
05
CD
S3 ' ' ’
■ • • • 1 iD
lO ^
lO
tO
iO
ia JO
»X5 O
vO
to
»o
tO
CD
w rH
-w*
^ .
CO 05
tH
o
<M
CM
<M ^
t-
o
*
tH
CD
i ’ i ! CO CO
fit©
rH
tH
tH
•rH tH
tH
*
C35
r-t
tH
tH
. (M (M
CO <M
CO
CO
CO
CO M
CO -tH
•H<
r*
«
•d<
0? ^
(M
CM
w
CM <M
CM
CM
DJ
CM
O
o
tH , . . Cd
• • CO
• t>
O
CM
t-
. GO
eo
CO
eo
o
tO
IH
IH
CO
• • 05
C35
o
CD
. . <M
’ CD
t-
t'-
♦ o
j>
!>-
i>*
t^
t-
tH
l>
IH
tH •
. .
b"
CO
CO . .
• 00
CO
CO
.
CO
00
GO
00
CO
00
00
00
CO •
, , 00
oo
CO
J2
o
O O <M -sji CD CO CO
5OWOC'-QOO5jQ(M|^»O0rjCO*HrHTHiH»-f i~t
th* t4 tH tH tH tH C<l ^ CM <N C<i (N (M* CM oi
tH tH CO tH
CMCMfiMCMCOeoeoeocoeo
t* t» t* t> t— !>• t'” l>» »* !>•
C3lC0r!H»0CDC0l>‘’«J<C050C5OtHGSie0t-J< »D
COCDCOCOCDCMCO<MCD<McDI>l>t-t'-t* l>
COl>«COO>OtH<MeO
ft-t-b-OOOOOOCJO
Edgerton, Paficatantra, II.
16
226
Conspectus of Text-Units
W T-(
o> O t-
t-000>OT-(M(MC0Ti<'eH\0
CO«X>COC-l>t>l>'t^t-»»*
tH (M CO IJS O C'j CO
T-<C0*>CftTH’~JtH'»HC<l(r3CI
ooooooooooo
OCOCOCOCO^OCOtOtOtOdP
CO b- CO <Tj O tH
I> t> b- t- CO 00
M CO OS tH lO
^ (M OC CO CO
CO O O O •*«i< o
^ (as 50 CD (N CO
X2
ei
rO
d
o
o
T
«Tj
o
©a
o'
T-(
tH
ti
en
c.
w
o
o
rQ
o
{M
CO
CO
tH
O
o
nd
o
■xif
C
o
xH
o
tH
(M «
oa CO CO
^ "fi T-i
o ^ rci
rQ o'
oS 0> rJQ
»0 b-
W (N Cl 01 CD b;
lO id ilO »o
CO CO CO CO CO CO
to lO lO )0 to
X3 'z;
eS ts o ^ ei
:o ® CD
Cix « 5 id
na o t-<
nD ■If ^ ni
"2 ® ^
« rb
CO ^ ■rH CO
Ot CO 05 05
vO 1(0 lO CD
CO CO CO CO
Dl (M oa T-J
id id id CD
V
05
tH
on
CO
to
' !!
b^
b*
OO
00
<Xt
d
o
T-<
“tH
TH
* T-^ .
yH
r4
tH
rA
CD
CD
CD
CO
CD
CD
CD
CO
CD
CO
•«— '
Ob
05
05
oa
to
• CD
b^
b;
CO
CO
irt
t-4
id
id
td
" lO
td
»d
id
td
oa
oa
to
ca
oa
oa
CM
’ ©a
oa
oa
oa
oa
50 CD CD 00 0> O O
an <X> CO CX> 00 05 05
CO 00 CO OO CO 00
(M CO CO
05 05 05
00 (» 00
to lO to b- O tH tH
OS 05 O <M O O O
00 OO CO 05 05 05
CO
oa ca ti
CD CO ©0 5
eo t- t- w
05 so CD
-#tOO505>r-lTHTHTHC0’^tO
b*b»b*b»b-l>b*b»b*b-b»
a5 05 05 05 C3>0505C50500
CO ■<?}< to tD l> b-
Conspectus of Text-Units
227
OOOsOr-lCMcO'^vOO
0305OOOOOOO
CO'TjfCOOOrHW Ot-4i-<
G<J<N(N(NCOcqTHN*<;^tqr^THr^
i-4rHT-HT-JTH-rM©icMcic^(W(j5c^
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO cO CO CO CO CO
0> tH <0 05 05
Ti <ja (M (ja {M CJ CNJ
rQ ^
rQ ^
a
O
C3
ee w
o
O • •
. . , ^ o
05
C?4 • *
‘ TH
H
eg
* nj C4
o ' — '
no
rz! •
CO
. , , O ^
c; 03
W
tH ,
. . . C4 e<
iH C4
* * ‘
r— 4 tH
tyt
CO r~^
o
. 5^^
ei
<N
O
rQ
CO CO
04 CM
« ^ ^ ce
35 r S .r^
rO
oS
CO
»
o
*
no
•
•
1^
•
O
*
rQ
no
o
ja
o
rQ
no
no
O
rO
TO
o3
o
rO
ret
c3
C5
no
JS
V
JQ
CO
o
(C
o
ee
rO
no
03
O
05
05
o
o
O
tH
rH
tH
; C4
©I
1 CO
O
CO
tH
wo
lO
* tO
CO
CD
05
(J5
o
o
o
o
o
O
* o
o
o
. O
tH
o
o
O
o
o
* o
o
O
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
T-(
tH
tH
«44
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
—H.
CO 05 W 00
05 od
CO CO CO lO CO
OtHt-ICSI(NCOt-<CO
TH^irt'tH'r-(-^OJC400
odododcdcdo6cidcdo5
cocococococoeococo
eo rH
; C5 05 05
CO CO CO
tH 04 cq T-;!
05 o o o o o
. CO ^ ^
T— irHT-tr^T-lr-lTHTHT-i
04THwc4oacavqcqTH
00 05* 05 05 05 05 cs' 05 05
»-< W tH tH tH tH ’T'I -iH iH
O 00 CS5
T-i tH rH
05 05 05
csicaT-fcMcoiqcqcqrH
oscftodcidooo
THT-<(MCM<Mfi4CMC4CM
tH <M C4 CO CO ^ iH tH ^ ^
, 05»-^THtHtHTHiqt^THi— ItHC4C4 tIJ
to * idiCsddddcdcddcct>t^t-^ *>
* w w ^ E3.
(M __ f-or-itHTHtHt-Ht-jrH't^^iiqCDCq CO
• cdco*cdedcdco*co*cdtcj3^*H;;^H!H
cocococococoeoeoeo .cococo co
04
th ea CO 00 CO
O O O 04 O
05 05 C35 05
l> t- !>• CO 05 05 O
O O O O O O tH
05 05 05 05 05 05 05
04 C4 CO
tH T-* tH »H
05 05 05 05 05
C0C0t»l>000005OtH
tH tH tH iH tH tH tH 04 04
C75O5O505C75O5O5O5i^
Htl 50 05
pft ^ er>
0004COt*«50I>00
tH tH »H tH tH tH tH tH
s
s
m
B
f
l> tH l> IH tH
r- !H tH IH IH IH
lO CO tH CO 05
tH tH iH tH
no
a
©4 CO
CO CO co
228
Conspectus of Text-Units
O w CO CD
-t( CO „ W CO CO
CMoleocococococococo
COCOCOCOi;0CDCOCOCOCO
t^WCO-^COOiOT-HOSlN
b- OB ^ <35 T-(
CO'«eOOOCQ«'3<?<<CMWCO
^ (^5 CO CO
(« rO «
coco !*“2
rQ
cj «Ti ^ nd
C55 O o «3 o
2 — rj <35 r-l tH
tH r-« r-C o rH T-<
’ll tH C<l lO CO rH
• 0ijc4cNOic4oicBiS
'Ti ,0 nd
e:> ei o
.to b- t>
, CO Cl to
CO CO -S#
Ti< ^ •>«3<
ts.C:iiH®3 t-HCO (n iHCO r-l i-l
‘OlClCO^CDC^COCpTH-Jjj^iClCaClCO
^XcnTo ;r-5r4flM’^cioicicj[cicicocNcoco'T}5 ;go
CMOlOl'^iMGSIOlCNIOlCl <M<M<N(M
•cH C5 05
CO 00 od
(M CNI Cl
to
C3 (M CM
05 05 05
CO to 00 <35 T-l T-C r-l
0000000000000005050505050505
O
rrtCQC0C0C0 C0 '^'^«ni<>^-5}(^^^^^C0»Ot0i0t0C0C0C0C0C0»0
vs 36
Conspectus of Text-Units
229
<NI
C>-QO<?aTH'»i<vO •COOt-COC^OOT|tHOvftCO-«i<5DI>‘i20TH
CD tH CO lO O lO
'StOkOiookOiDeoio CO
CO CO eo CO CD CO
^ 0> ^ (M
CO g
rCt rsi r£i’
63 O 03
^
CO »-4 CNJ CO
th ca CM CN
C£S CO CO CO'
^ ^ ^ ^
00
CSC * a
00 ‘
O iQ lO i£5
C<l (M
CO
©a
^ c-
o ’T! o
tH O 1H
OJOCOW'^C*-
O »-• iH CM ^ g«
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
, <M ,
00 c?o
00 rH o • ^ ^
CO CO •<«<< ♦ CO CO
O • 0> CD
©Cl CO tH lO ID 00 CD
t- ^
r» T-l T-l T«1 V.M WJ T-l ^ i.t.1 T-I
C0CMTH»DC0t-00CDC0OC0'M'+»O»JDvD»DI>-kD00CD ’OO^C0»DCD^
COOOCOCOCDCOCOCOC(Ot^OOfc''OOOOGOOOCOI>'OOt*l> COQOQOOOCOOOQO
'«i*00OO»H<MOe0c0t-00CS'^O»OW<MC0
'^iDtOCOCOCO'!t<COTi<*^'^'^COvOtt>iDiDvO
230
Conspectus of Text-Units
Conspectus of Text-Units
231
rH 1-1
TH<Me0O«0t>-t^l>0005
r-l (N CO to c-
CO •OOOOCOQOCOOD
t-4 t-I rH t-( rS tH tH
CO
^ XI
Oi O
COiOtOCOI>C5^^THCO^COl>T-lT-(CO
r-<W--T-(r-(r-r'rHr-(T-(T>KTHQc5W^’r-<WiH
00
^ ^ ^ ^
Xi o o ^
CO CO CO ri<
CO CO CO CO CO
’xs «s
uo CO
C« IM
,0 rti C3
cS O f
CD 50 22
(N 05 ^
. ^
T-l
<»
o
<M
CS cd
CO CO
01 CM
Xi
g nj *
^ 8 s
■ O tH
• to eo
^ CO rt< lO
O CD to
CD CO iM T-1 T-
|>.CCi<3SiC»OOOlOT-4eO<
.y3CMCM<MG<lCMCMC0C0C0(
-«# CO CO QO tH tH
CO CO CD CO CO CD
^ tH lO
^ o r*
W (J5 CO CO {jji
05 ca W ea <M
o o o O o
^
^
tH CM C5
ri< "Tt* rH
y— V,
X— >
o
,
. iO
Pi
a»
*
.
UO
o
I>*
i>
b-
. 00
o>
Ci
T“^ •
• ^
to
*
*
‘ C5
CM
CM
. OO
. CO
. CTi
. X
CO
eo
cd
cd
cd
• cd
cd
ed
cd *
• cd
■ CO
00
CO
00
0^
00
* 00
CO
00^
CO
• OO
QO
-w
w
. «£>
•rH
O
1-1
o
. o
tH
iH
<N
.
lO
Oi
*
, -rH
(M
• iO
• »o
CO
p»
CJJ
pi
T-l
.
T-(
T-f
t-<
*
tH
y»
«
• T“<
• T-i
o6
cd
cd
00*
cd
• cd
cd
<d
cd
• 00
00
cd
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
eo
CO
CO
CO
o o o
00 OO CO
. CT CO « § g 2
• i> fco io 2 2 2
. oo^ —*
‘jj ‘S! 'si
<3» an
^ kjQ
O O
CO 05 CO
CO CO
o O o
o
o
rS
O
tH
O
05
€0
'•iH
to
b-
o
1-i
(M
OCI
CO
fM|
tH
CO
• iO
• X
X
tH
rH
T-i
i-S
T-*
iH
rH
iH
i-i
05
CM
■rHI
*•#
CO
CO
C5
ok
• <M
rH
rH
*«#
r-l
• i-<
• b-
b*
b*
l>
W
b-
b-
b-*
b*
b-
b-
b-’
ir-
b-
00
CO
CO
a
CO
Oi
05
Oj
0%
o>
a
05
05
35
05
05
05
es
05
05
05
05
s
lO CO CO iO
t> t** I> t»
!Ol>t-00O!iOt-(0JIC0xH»DC0l>C(0CB(OiHCMe0
l>*t>t-l>*l>COCOOOCOCCOOOOCOQOC300iCftOSC»
> > ^
oQ n p9 cQ in
^ ^ ^ ^
232
Conspectus of Text-lTiiits
GQ
o d
CO CO
1-1 tH
N CO
T-J 5h ci <M*
CO CO Cfi
»o
ci
^ <}
»<» f<5
CO CO
»C5 iQ
o
l>-
ca
?? ^
j5'
»o
es
00
CO
In
O «} O
o
* • I>
• *
•H« lO lO CO
CO
0 *
• • CO
• •
. . b- . .
• • •
^ S'
CO
o
nd
• • CO » •
• . .
^ nO r>2t nd
rQ
CO
• • 05
. .
. . ^ .
ej O O
d
o'
• . CM
• .
. . o . .
, * *
427
427
428
428
05
CM
CO
H<
«w
o
• • •
429
o
o rQ
rO
vO CO
05 CM
> nd
O
, «C)
t- 00
CM 05
t- CM -tH
i-< CM CM CM
i> c-«’ od
CO CO CO CO to
lO CO
oo fid
t-
cd
CO ^ CO t>
tH W t}4 C» O
CM CM CM CM IQ CO iH
cd cd cx) 00 <d d C35
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
OCM^iOOi-lCMO
T-f t— t Y~i ‘r-< ^ rW tH
05 (M CM cm' cd CO CO CO
^ 00 o CM
• C5» iH CM CM
; 2 CO cd CO*
^
W
to t- t- 00 05
CO CO CO CO CO
o o o o o
iH iH tH T-( tH
o o
ts. !>,
o o
CM (M CO
r- t> t- i>
o o o o
>OC0eOl>00'cHCM(M
£rE:rErE:r£r*^cooo
o o o o o o o
tH iH 1— ( tH tH tH »-4
»0 t- 00 00 (M
CO »0 CO
t>l>O5C0*^u0t-t rHtH
OOO’-ftH'i-'— <<OtHtH
OOOOOOOtOOO
i#50cOI>-0005QtH (M
05 CJ5 CP5 05 0> 05 O O O
THT-(tHTHT-(T-<CMCM CM
ooopKopo
s
m
■< CM CO
05 55 05 d d CM CM
VO
tH r-4
ca
Conspectus of Text-Units
233
OOaiOOiHiHtMW-rHiOt
osojoooooooo
tH CO QO
cd CO 00 CO CO tJH
CO 00 CO CO CO WO
tH tH iH
><3 -<5 -<4
T-J (N
uo CO xH* -njl
lO wQ CO CO
•cH lO t-;
r# h-
00 CO CO »o
tH t-«f
-etj <<
CO oo o — <
t-4 rH CCJ iH vO OO
CO G3 03 O O O
CO CO CO CO It- l>t-
OOOOOC30^(C5’H»H'»“H»-i T-iTHtOt*
l^t«.t-GOCOCiOt>-t-l>-|>t>.l>*QOOO
T**TH'r-lr-(THT-l»-H'«HTHlTHTHr-<T-lT«<t-«r-<T-t
CO wU ^
"CH ■c^^ ^ 51
. . CO
■M (M O
C3 03 CM
CO'^iOuO3Ol>>03 OOWi-lfM
COOOOOOOOOOOOO Cn»003 03CJ3
ooooooo ooooo
OPuOCnO'rH-HCM'cJCb-
l>l>CJ>03OOOOlr-
O O tH
-«ii4 lO CO l> 03
CM (M CM
o o o
tH tH tH
Co’cO*l>COCOCo’cO-tJ(CDtHCOa3't*t-^-sH^'CH'?i<0— «
OOt--COOOOO*.COwO*OiOOOOOOOCOCO
•H (M o CO hH wO CO
CM CM rH CN
rM (TM H fM
'M(MCMCMCM'^'"'*''*^(MCMCOCOeOCO
CMCMO^CMCM «J oq xd WCMCMCM<M<M<M
j> j>.
spn
234
Conspectus of Text~Units
Colophon ... 227
Conspectus of Text-Units
235
M H M W H
1-1 CO «£> w
itcilajysiasiysw iri*r-c— c-c-'C-c-
rcJ ra
0^0
etf ^ bJ
b- t> CO GO 05
CO CO CO CO CO
tJ<
. d rCl ^ o o
, >— > ,»-v
• o q o o o
• rj< *«*
• rtf rc(
^ ni ^
c3 o no Rj
O CD CO CO CO
c4 CP 03 ^
^ ^ r-< r-< H
(J® dj rO o
CW tM «
tH CD > O O
« rtf rf< njf rjf-
.COC5 0b-|>
^ "ejt «rl< iQ *0 lO
^ ^ ^
THt-l<MCQril.iOCOt-
OOOOOOOCMOOOSOi^^OO
CM oa <M OJ (M ca
CM «M
<j
CM50--J<»D(MC0l>Q0C0rHCftO
T-(i-f-HiH «ji-ti-tr-( 03 BQi-ttM
l> > >
236
Conspectus of Text-Units
Conspectus of Text-Units
237
Cv.
(N
CO
eo ;51
iH
■rt
lO
00 ^
tH
!>
CO
a
rA
tH
O
CM
CO
CO
*
*
*
‘
•
r-
•
rH
tH
T-l
00
i-i
<
CM
CM
eo
w
CO
tH
CO
tH
H
. . »c5
«M a
-HI
03
-#
03
o
rH
o
tH
ni
n3
•
*
*
•
•
*
*
•
no
•
d
eS
o
•
eS
•
o
o
rH
Cfi' '■^
■w 00
v-s.
N,
CM
CM
CO
00
CO
r-
03
C33
t-
tH
tH
tH
:
•
1
;
•
*
1
CM
ts
o
CO
*
rfl
y£>
tO
rji
00
00
1
03
*
<03
*
*
‘
*
*
*
•
*
rJC
o'
3
•
3
CD
'5*1
Hjl
*
•
1
O
•
•
;
•
t-
rH
o
tH
CM
o
rQ
<3$
.
.
.
.
•
o
.
,n
nO
^ nD
rn
rtJ
tQ
HD
lO
no
o
cS o
ci
O
ti
rd
03
04
nd
cS
.
.
,
,
xti
.
O
CO
CO
*
<33 03
o
o
<M
00
CO
'«#
no
o
CD
•
•
•
•
•
•
r-i
CO
tH
•
tH rH
CM
CM
CM
CM
M
CM
t)
04
CM
•
•
•
*
*
•
'Stl
04
CO
00 03
CM
04
XD
,
a>
C33
,
r-( T-l
CM
CO
tH
C-
tH
lO
tH
*
o
o
«
l> C-
!>-
•
00
cX>
CX)
«
o
rH
tH
•
•
«
CO
CO
»
tH -d*
TdC
•
■rjl
«
CO
CO
CO
tH
tH
M
CM CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
rH
rH
tH
©1
CO
lO
O O
rdC
CD
CO
O
hH
CM
*
*
*
*
*
tH
T-C
T-< T-i
rH
tH
rH
CM
tH
CD
tH
,
.
,
.
03
03
>
.
03 03
03
.
03
<33
03
03
O
d
kO
lO
M
tH t-I
tH
rH
rH
tH
lO
CD
CD
,
,
,
.
,
«
T-l CM
CO
irT
oT
•
•
«
•
.
•
.
*
»
•
•
•
•
«
03
•
r#
rii
■HI
■HI
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
*
CO CD
CD
CD
*
•
*
•
•
•
*
•
•
•
*
*
hH
lO CD
c-
00
05
rH
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I
\
d d
d
d
d
d
»
«
«
03 03
03
<^
03
03
”7
T
T
,
OJ
04
o"
CM
Cft
CM
o
CO
CO
rH '«fl
kO
CD
t-
GO
o
O
CM
CO
CO
,
*
,
CM
(M
©4
CM CM
(M
CM
CM
CM
CO
00
CO
CQ
CO
tH
CM
CM
(M CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
04
04
CM
CM
tH
a
T-l
tH
rH tH
rH
rH
rH
tH
rH
rH
rH
rH
tH
H
n3
CO
g
©1 CM
CD
t-
C33
tH
rH
(M
■r
CO
o>
o
O
CM
iC)
•
tM
CM
CO
CO CD*
CD
CD
CO
CD
r*l
■5dc
1>^
l>
t-*
CO
CO
iH
CM
•
T-<
(M
W
(M
tH
CM
T-C
CM
rH rH
rH tH
rH
rH
rH
rH
rH
rH
tH
tH
rH
rH
CM
r-<
CM
rH
rH
tH
rH
rH
<
H
H
C-H
H
CO
K-H
t-
00
a
lo'
o
tH
CM
CD
CO
C3
CO
o
w
T-< <M
CO
lO
CD
««-<
o
t-
CO
rH
03
o
rH
©4
CM
<M
<M
CO
CO
CO
CM
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
CO CO
CO
CO
00
CO
CO
eo
CO
-di
>
03
>
so
>
03
>
eo
>
s
02
a
m
s
CQ
238
Conspectus of Text-Units
'I
Conspectus of Text-Units
239
MHWWH - MHHMHM • H X * X X X X • X X X X XXX
B
S
0
a
0
15
0
0
0
05
05
<M
Dl
CD
r-(
0
CM
<M
1X5
. CM
0
CO
« CM
0
CO
CO
CO
CO
t-
♦ CO
-H
CO
CO
^ tH
,Q
<M
CO
• CO
0
ed
00
CD*
CO
* ^
cd
! cd
<0
CD
cd
I
t*
O' eo
l£5
o>
P(
iirs
a»
p^
U5
05
Pi
<75
CD
(35
05
05
CD
ew
C>
05
<75
05
<35
05
CD
05
CD
05
05
CD
rd rO
o ei
>ca CO
ijO lO
XS '5f(
0
• O'*
0
• ; ^ »S no
C3
• o' • *
CM
• • iH
In'
w
CD
! «o ' *
* I ^ »
00
iOi
»o
. . lO kO
iO
‘ Ti<
■cK ^
o ^
,0 ixJ «si
00 00 55
O lO lO
xft
,n rd T3
cS o o
w
000
CD CO CD
'kjH
0
0
no
rQ
n3
! rO
!
*
; 05
rCt
no
rd
* *
: :
04
nd
rd
0
d
0
. Cj
• C3
. rd
• 50
05
CO
d
d
0
d
0
. 4 Si
nc3
0
d
0
50
CO
CO
t-
0-
t”-
05
0
0
(M
CO
CO
50
»D
CO
CD
CO
CO
CO
. CO
. cc
« CO
r«
*. ^
no
N5
-t
nf , ,
4 4
'C|<
-ri<
.
.
0
4
• 00
eo
CO
CO
u
r-tO-iHtWCO <N<M1X31O<MC0 rHcOiOt-
.iH<M(M<MCMiH 00 T-j — THT-J(MCS«CNC0eDt>05rHT-<T-J^
•iOvO>0»0*Ocdflf5<OOCDeOG5cdcDCOt>C*”l>t-t^l>I>l>'l>'
■OOOOCOOOOOOOt-OOQOOOOOCOODCOCOCOCOCOCOOOOOOOCOOO
T-(THr-lT-<i~lT-< t-i THT-irHtTHT-iTHr-CWt-fT-tT-trHiHr-iTH
00 00
l> 1> ^
30 00 00
0
tH
T-<
tH
if!)
rH
CO
t'-
CD
0
tH
iH
tH
CO
CM
CO
CO
4C}<
CO .
• • -
• tH
rHI
tH
• CM
• CM
CM
<M
CM
c»5
• 50
T?
'Cj*' *
* * J5
* * s ^
0
nJ<
CM
CO
Tjl
I
I
rH
rH
id
CD
CO
* <3D
CO
CD
CD
CO
CD
CD
CD
CD
CO
CO
4+1
0
CD
CD
4m
0
CD
CD
CO 05
Cci CO CO ^ ^ ^
h-ooco .co-c^^n
cDCDeDTHCOCDcd^o*
cOcOCDrHCOCOCD'^iD ‘COCDCD
tK vO 1X5
CM (M <M
O <79 CD
a
O
\o
' CO CD CD CD
00 CO CD
05
CD
. O r-( tH
* CN CM fM
• iM oi <M
05 05 05
l>
<M
<0e0C0'rHTHTH(M<MCDC00505O
)X3iX3iOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCDcOt-
CMCMCM (MDICM CM CNNCM
o *H tH 155
t>> t~« O* t-*
CM (M OX CM
CO CO
l> l> CO
<M CN
03 r-t
05 05
fl
o o
O rH CM «0 lO
iOCOl>'iHr-tT-iT-<’rHT^tMCO»OCDt>
_ _ CO O
CN CM »0 CM
000000000^»“<’H'»Hi-H
CMCM<M<M<MW<M<M<M<MCN<MCN<M
S -
m
T-f CO <M 05
CO CO CO CO
l>-Q0050rHWCO’^»0
cocococ— ooooo
cDt-ooo50
t^-orr-ir-oOrd®®®®
240
Conspecttis of Text-Units
GO CO t-
05 GR 05
O t fd ^
»jQ »rJ • o o
rt o es rO rO
00 GO 00 • 0f> 05 05 O
tH Ttf ♦ tH O
th nd 'd
lO o «
CM CO
lO >0
-r-(eOOOOOOTHOG> «DI>COOGOcOH<
C<JMC0tOC0iMrHTHT-JCM(MTH iH*-^THflM01(NCM C0©4
oo‘cdooQ6cdooodcdcdododc55coc505C!5C5oo5(->i>'OT-I
OOQOOOOOQOCOOOGOCOOOOOaOOOCOCOOOOOOiCoSSoOOOS
r«< rH tH iH W tH ■»-{ tH rH rH tH fia^ W rH »H rH ^ tH ^ t— t tH
^ (Me0t-C005 Cd
C0C005WtH'-HtHt-<CMC0 tH r^T-(
idiOidiou3»oid)ao«Dcd o oococo
COtOeOCDCOCOCOCDOtO ^ 05COtO
r-i
tH
CM
CM
CO
CO
iO
50
00
00
00
CO
flO
00
00
00
(X)
00
CM
IM
CM
©4
CM
CM
CM
(M
CM
CM
lO 05 05 o
CO 00 00 05
CM CM (N
^ eo
05 05 05
CM ©4 Ofl
tH
tH
vO
TH
!>►
tH
l>
tH
CM
CO
tRH
50
O
o
tH
O
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
IF^
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM*
00
CM
Cl
CM
(M
(M
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
(M
50
CM
CM
CM
r-*
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
t-H
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
iH
tO
«lO
OO
05
O
tH
CM
CO
'cH
50
CO
I>
00
00
00
00
OO
00
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
00 O tH CM CO
^ O o O O
242
Conspectus of Text-Units
Conspectus of Text-Units
243
'r^
(M
cC
o
O
05
a»
«-4
-*1
jjS 00
ej
T-i lO 00 ^
iH tH tH (N
- rt rt oj «J rO T-^ tN w
000000;^0»HtH!M
C3iC3504050S0>'?rCSC^iC3S®»
CO i
, CO t-o •«*« Ph
, Ci C»
tH T-i tH ?0
<1 ^
w
n=5
O
rP 52
GO
cc
CO rcj
tij
:S p
O
00
t>
o
/-*N
CO
'«r
eS
CS
c-
rfl
rO
<d
«
OS
. . •
o
rO .
»Q
. » *
O *
tH
rcT
xS *
no
.
OS
I-—
■rt<
‘w' •
o
o
: : :
00
tH
eg
ce
rd
wo
l>
o
Lt
eg
to
•
nO
00
**
eC
t?
»
O
tS
tH
n-j
to
b*
t-
O
O
ei
t-
t-
uJ
ICS
WO
.
o
r-
tt
t-
GO
00
05
*-4
CM
tH
tH
T-l
r!
<M
CM
C5
CM
l>
tt
t>
ejs
OS
05
OS
OS
OS
OS
tH
H
rH
tH
tH
CO
CO
05
CM
•
tH
tH
sO
t-
CO
CO
*
HN
tH
tH
tH
tH '
t*
l>
t-
c-
r>*
C-
o . .
*
. o
.
. « «
fO n:g * I
ce oa
* * tH ’
o
1 ^
! no
o
: : :
ca g . .
. . ^ *
CM
; 00
. G5I
. ^
• : :
O CO
CO CO CO 00
T-( l> CO CO
ri Cft O OS 05
f» w o o
05 *-( o o
05 OI
^ o
O on
O O »-i
CM
OS
»o to wo
O r-t O
CM CM
^ »5H
tH 1^- t- It- t-
\0
'I—' lO CO
<» S
c-
CO
i!i
I— (
W'
tH
«o
Q(D
00 00 OS o , o
CO CO CO
CO CO CO CO * CO
tH 05 <M CO
^ -TiS Tt* CO
CO CO CO CO rt*
00
CO CO
o
o
GO <0
€0
CO sO I'- GO
oS oi c8 o3 6^
o o o o o o
C5 (M 95 (M (M (M
CM (M <M ©4 CM (M
^ ^ <j <1 <j
tH CM (M
^tH'THT"*C0(M*t#C0’ti<
iOo5CM05l>£MI>CM<M
CM pfl CM (M (M <M CM
^ ^ ^ ^
•C
lO
<M
55
<1
01 CO CO iP
00 to GO OJ
OX OO.^
"S
ox
T“( O ®5 t-i
to
16*
244
Conspectus of Text- Units
^ X X >i X
« X M M
2 ^
2 <35 2
^ ^ ^
(?I(fj2<?a{N(N .^WCO
^ ^ ^ ^
o o o • o o o
o o
tM
<0 ns *®
e8 o S5
« 2 ^
nd rO
O ^ rta
^ O «3
«* tH CN «
r^ r^
CO
f tH CM «
i 3 S s
, .
fO
no
43
no
m .
O
a
« « .
« g
05
-•tif
05
o
lO
- o •
" lO •
£- eo
no
C3 *
43
n3
. ^ .
S 00
ce
O
• oj •
C»
485
485
• CO *
00
^ fXJ
a o
c<5 -rH WD lO CO
GO 00 <30 00 CO
iC5 »a o CO CO
o o o o o
CM CM CM CM C5
4»
O
43
43
43
o»
d no
43
nd
43
43
rd
eS
««
tT
O O
ce
(0
cS
d
O
o
O
O
O
O
«0
00
o
03 o
r-^
•jH
CM
CO
CO
CO
00
CO
CO
cq
03
C30
c8
/-rT
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
03
rd
CO
00
<<4
«44
<+4
«+4
00
O
«
o
CJ
o
s
CM
CO
CO
CQ
O
05
<55
^ o
rH
T-i
CM
1-^
w
50
50
CO
00
■iH
CD
CO*
CO t-
CD
CD
CD
1>
l>
t4
l>
bP
bP
O
o
O iH
O
O
O
O
o
o
o
o
o
O
o
CM
(M
CM
CM
(M
CM
M
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CSQ
^ c=> o o o
•r! CO CO CO CO CO
PQ
W
I S
a a
S'2
▼-» w <M 00 CO
^ CO <0 fiO CD
eo CO CO CO CO
<o
CO
tH
<0 05 »>
CO CO
flMCMCOeOeO-«*-^*(u3COJ>
COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO
CM CO lO wO
CO CO eo «o
CO CO CO CO
CM
OS — ej
^ ^ _.m>
IT* ^ ^ ^ <o 05
{> JiS CM iS <N »>
^ CM CM &NI
OQL ” QO.
CQ
CMCO’nJC^ciCiOiOCOCOC^OO
>
w
2 ^
CO to
"" p
^ o>
ts
Conspectus of Text -Units
245
X XX
O'-'OOOOOOO
T-1,.'*HTHT-lrHT-<»-<rH
"t!
O »H T-1
O lO o
wrs S lO a vo S .
O O O C5> o ^
^ g
^ ^ ^ ^ jil ^ tH
rd OO QO
00 CO’
oO -d(
O ^ to
^ Jo S “1
c3 pJ' X
'O O o
§ » 5 s
r}< CO TS w
O c tH
a» S
CO ^
08 o
s ^ «
^ ns
© <M O
eq c» ®
CR> «o
5S
*n CD
03 C73 0^ O
oooooooo
(MCNOJWCMCMCNCM
0> 03 lO
o6cot-cdodc303i>03
OOiHOOOO'^O
<M CNI CM (N (M CM
l> QO OO 133 O 1-t tH
t- t- t- 00 QO 00
CO CO CO CO CO CO eo
SSg
03 o o ; o o o
CM CO CO CO CO CO
ao OO o o
SSI (M QQ CO
CM (M CM
P" CM <M
fc* ^
Q
€»O^OlCO'rH»OCOI>
I>-OOQO'OOOOOOCOaOC»
dO^OOO tH cmoicoI^
oo?°«D03 at 030C&K.
C' m ^ ^ at ^
246
Conspectus of Text-Units
H X ^ X X
O
CO
05
O
(M
CD
T-(
CO
tH
tH
> «
00
tH
T-l
tH
CM
CM
CM
. CM
eo
W
CM
CM*
<d
cd
ed
CO
CD
CD
CO
. CO
CD
CO
*
O
O
5b o
o
o
O
o
O
O
O
* O
O
O
*
<M
CM
OQ tH
iH
r-(
t-H
T-C
T-C
T-l
<>1
fa
^
,s>
O'
cS
rO
ns
pQ
no
rd
RS
00
o
.
. eS
o
««
. O
ce
H «y?
iS
00
iB>
00
*
•
• 05
05
O
* O
tH
la
ei
lO
CS
to
* to
tO
* CO
N—'
CD
to.
CO
o
05
rQ
. ^
ns
no
00
ed
1
I
• o
*s
o
.
• es
o
tH
ftT
05
ns
•
to
•
to
’ CD
CD
M
05
05
05
05
05
05
Ot
bje
TfC
Til
Til
Tf
j OJ
rH
■ to 00 ^ CO
• 00^0
• CM W {M
•<j fi, <j
-Q rcJ ^ ^ Ttf
Bj OO aJ eS O CO
« (M «5S
S
<M CM
l>THt>-
T-jCMT-CrHC-t-
O O O tH tH -<
T-< jM tH <f— I — ^ -l«-l
CNJ CM <M CM CM CM
CM W g 00
r-l
(M CM ^ O <M
r-C — 00 tH —
CM CM l> CM
Cft -«-( CO
■M CM CM CM
CM CM CM CM
tH CO CM CM
CM CM CM CM CM
CM CO ^ <-s ^
w T-( lO »0 <0
CM* ca «s ed CO
i> i> i> i>. i>
CO -4
l> t>» b- t-
^CMcDb»b>- •y-<I>1>00
t>i>b-b-t> *t»ododod
CBC3OCI0C5 CJC&C3505
•O tO O b- OO CX)
Cb 05 C55 05 Ot Cft
CO CO CO CO CO CO
. 05 o o o
» 05 p o o
^ CO 'lie T*(
*(0 CO r^
O O O
-rt< Tt<
l>0005050’~< ^
"1 *^. 3 s s s g
C2«a'MCM<M(Meoeocol>‘^^* S
WCOCOOOCOCOCOCOCO^^^ w
CMCO'^H*0<SOI>-C!OC3>0
OOOOOOOOv-t
CM(M(M(M<M(MCMCM(M
CM (M « ^
Xt rQ ^
*0 to lO
CO CO CO
CM CM CM
<j <j ^
to CO b- (M CO
^ T-l TH b- T-l
CM CM CM CM
Conspectus of Text -Units
247
X Vi X i< H X ^
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
COX COQOOOOOCOCa
oooooooo
OOCCSOt-CiOCNcOCOt-'ODI
THT-i-r-STHr-JCatNcaCNCflOacO
OaC^C»OaOdOC^O>OC>CiO^
oooooooooooo
O O . oi
lO * »o o
?£) CD * CO CD
^ rd
'o'j rO fTSpfio
■^"coi>t^c*Sooooc3oa>cji
^ CO CD «0 CD ^ CO CO CD CD CO
‘^^CM00COCO^'Cj('^«t#l»O»O
oagooooOooooo
0””^vO»0»JO»Oi©iOiO»DkO»0
C3 • • ^
03 rO ‘ O nd * 03 «!{
kC >0 iO uD CO CD
OJ (N • (N rN • (M D1
rO a
O «« ®»
- t— r- 00 >T3 cjs o
(N 00 o
Cft «j CO
CO CO eo CO 00 rf
O1{MClC4{M(M03C3
t— -jr
♦ tH 00 00
05 O CM CO W
•W. Ca(N(NCOvOQOC:5 *1-1
; 00 CO 00 oo’ 05 05 04 05 ’05
(M0ICa(M03<M05ieM CM
CM CM CM CO ®®
T-( t-HI r-( 'M CM
»0 "^!H
05050000'^t-iTH04CM<NCO
CM CO 'cK WO CO t>
»0 50 t- C-
GO CO 50 CO to
^Oi-SCMCOTHiOCOt-^OO lO OO'-'OJCOtHWOcOC-'OOO^O'i-^
P5(MCM(MCMOI(NfiMe<*t:-^ tr- OHcOCQcOOOCOcOeoeOCOCO>?(<“fi
S<M«<M(MOHffaiO«CM„CM „ CM<WCM<M04CMCNCM<MO<IOS«>I«M
506 (70) a b 109.36
Conspectus of Text -Units
X X t< X ^ K y,
^ a ei iH<rtcoi>C5T-jTHT-( jm
5 «5 O r-i iH Y-i G<i oi CO t CO O yH
iO<t^^(MCMG^CM(M<M£MWOT *<M
CO »0 K.
^ « <0
CO ^
CO
O CO <N •>
cqco*<;f<j^QqosY-iiHC>aiOr^i>
CDC0CO^COC0C0C01>O5<!fi>ci
N<MflSI OJiN01CNI<NC<IfiM(NI
B{ CO i> CO aj * nS
*5 ‘O ^ 2 <3^ ^■
^ ^ YH r-l ^ ^
ri tH ^ ^
o efi th
. th ca <N oa
' ^ ^ d ^
' yH
(M (55
, (?a ^ W lO ^ 0> ^
OjOOOt^OOO
•HCM<M(M{NCN(MC^
(M (M W (M <M
CO »?!}< CN „
• ^eOCO®^ ]icOTHH5'«dH
<»000000 CO
99 <»
a ?s s
<M eo
d
iO l> CO
§!
Y-t
00 C) ■ * •
00 CO o o o
Cl
^ (M (N (N
^ ^
w CO eo tH *o »o CO
'THCOCOCQCOCOCOSO
1-4 W CO CO
01CMC1(M£MC1<NC1(M
rJ( tH lO CO Cl t-
CMC1C1C1(N doses
h-iHdCO-iliiOCOC-OOOSQOOOSO
t>iOlCSiOiO»OxO>OfcOiOt-COC-00
mCM(5ild(MCldCMd(N ^ „
Conspectus of Text-Units
249
•
• M
X
X
X
5-^
X
X
X
X
X
K
X
58
. tH fife
• (N
• ^
ds>
lu-S
rQ
s s
^ »D
la i-H
^ o»
CO
u;?
64
65, 66
67
;
-H
69
00
03
113.6
113.7
113.9
113.13
<j3
-sj
ja
np
o
e3
•
,
•
♦
o
eg
«r
CD
CD
f
tr-
*
CO
•
’
•
•
CO
•
'tii
rH
tH
'T-i
lO
to
to
Ife
to
sS
•
I
xO
rQ
0®
life
HD
%o
tH
'
t-i
’
C«
r-C
D
eg
04
03
CO
o
«
to
Cj
vO
to
O
no
tH
tH
CO
tH
*
«
»o
to
(M
CO
05
CO
tO
CD
J>.
00
vO
CO
t- CO
CO
CO
05
O
03
tH
CO
03
03
03
03
03
o
o
o
o o
C>
o
o
tH
tH
T-<
t-(
rA
tH
tH
CM
04
04 CM
03
03
04
03
04
04
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
04
03
03
03
03
03
04
03
to
ta
i
m
w
.
»o
S c»
§ «
s ^
S o
i ^
.
.
I
r^
T-f
c-
1"
e4
I"
^ CD
a
a
a
♦
‘
§
ts
ei
w
W
tu
pa
CD
lO
CD
CO
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
l>
CO
CO
CO
CO
•
•
•
tH
tH
to
CD
o
o
t-4
«-t
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
tH
tH
r3
,
1
, I
,
,
,
•
.
>
M
r-(
T-t
tH
tH
CD
t-
00
C5
o
03
CO
»o
CD
*o
»o
»o
xO
uO
lO
to
00
05
T-<
04
OK
03
CO
CD
r-
CO
oi \a
to
o
tH
03
CO
*0
to
00
2
00
oo
00
vO
vO
\a
to
*
CD
to
CO
CD
CO
CD
CO
■«ri
■i—t
tH
tH
w
05
o
T-t
to
CO
o
04
CO
lO
CO
to
c-
to
\o
to
00 04
Oi
03
o
o
o
O
o
o
o
03
o
03
<55
05
c»
05
a
CO
o>
* ^
a>
rs
r-<
r-i
1H
r*<
r-i
r-(
CO
T-<
CO
CO
CO
tH
'-H ^^a eo
OO 00 C30 00
p, p. ^
CO
CSI CO CO Tff
o> CO o>
«
> f>
H
js^ »0 «o t- 00
£7 CO CO CD C>
^ O# (M (N
260
Conspectus of Text-Units
End of Story X j | . |
293 j A 262 | 1499 . ... 225.7 162 a b 617 (80) c d 114.13
Conspectus of Text -Units
251
* • • * ...
o
CO
to
■r-l-e*<C- l>COQ0 COOO
t- ^.00 • • • - "to . W CM ’I CO -H ’I VO
lO tH kOW to »~1»0 • • • - to CM *\OCM»0(MeOCNtOCM«OCMO
CM CM CMCM CM CMCM • « . .(MM -CMCMCMTICMCMCMCMCMCMCM
CM CMCMCM CM CMCMcMCMtMCM
CO
<© tH
00
c-
co
CM
I©
CC
o
00
, flO .. .Ci.... Ot-c.CMCO.-^.iO,
lO iO «>co coco co to
05 .... ^ r-c 50
05 *! .050.,Ot-Ct-CCMCO<M'^CM»0
00 . . . OvO . t-»C-.»Ot*t>'vOI^*vOt*«
rl CO • * ^
M CO CO C- CO<35C>v-tCM_CO
to CM tOCO lO «c}ltOI>*Q0O5'.-itOCM05tO'^tOW0«O50coC-*CO00SO
CM 7-1 CMtH M T-t(M7^7-l.-«<MMCM<MO«(MCMCMcM<M<MfiMO^CM<M
^ <cj ^ *<5 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
00 M 0> CO 7-4 .njf
OOCJ3OO05OOOOOOOO
m
> >■
252
Conspectus of Text-Units
99 ab I A141.5
Conspectus of Text “Units
253
tH
O 00
Oi
o o
tH
tH
tH
©a
^ kC
kO
kO
CO
CO
i>
CO
CO
Oi
o
o
-H
tH
©a
CO
m
kd
tH tH
tH
CO tH
t-4
tH
tH
tH
t-(
rH
tH
tH
©a
©1
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
tH
©a
'<i<
iO rH
lO
CD
05
T-* kO
l>
CO
tH
tH
tH
tH
CO
si
iH ©i
©a
©a CO
CO
CO
CO
kO kb
kb
kO
kO
kb
»o
CO
t>
cb
cb
00
05
'fit
'fl*
©a
CO
tcH
■'cH
■<#<
-H
tH
tH
rH
tH tH
■tH
TH
«H
tH
tf
tH
Id
tH
CO
"<\
<1
^ ^
H ■<} H ■**•1 H
Htj
H <4 <4
<4
<4 H H
X2
rd
40
*Ti
xT
d ««
,
,
.
O
eg
X5
.
.
o
,
.
.
.
,
a
.
.
.
.
,
*
v-'-S.
•
*
•
k /-N •
*
»
•
.0^
♦
*
*
♦
•
*
•
•
*
•
©a ©a
©a
CO
CO
CO
-cH
'w/
!
»o u©
*
*
•
»o
CO I
CO
*
•
CO
•
*
*
•
t-
•
•
'
*
•*
*
©a ©a
©a
©a :
©a
©a
©a
xO
©1
»0 lO
kO
kO
kO
kO
lO
^ •
»o
o
CO
42
rd
o
o o
ce
©a
O
O
tH 42
TJ
CO
o
00
O
cd
Xi
'
I
fd X!
,ja rO
tj
O
tH
o
o3
o
*
'
*
o
V eg
o
cj «3
©1
rjd -tjt*
tH
CO
CO
O
o
a>
QO O
o
«-H ©a
<44
o
O
O
kb
o
tH
tH
tH
•
*
Oi
0% o
rH
o o
<y
tH
tH tH
rH
•
o
t-
rH
r-|
«
'r-t
TH tH
O
tH
o
•
lO
CO
05
.
©a
©a
©a
,
,
CO
> <
.
..
05
05
05
♦
*
<M •
• »
*
©a
©a
©a
©4
©a
©a
©a
t-
.
CO
tH
tH
a>
tH
,
■ ,
,
*
co'
cb
00
CO
©a
VO
cv
T“< *-<
iO
©a eo
<D
kO
05
05
o
tH
hH
CD
kA
b*
tH
00
CO
ca
«5 vO
\a
xO
kO
kiO
kO
wO
w
CD
CO
CO
CO
CD
CO
CD
o
CO
©a
tH
\0 UO
tH
to lO
kO
kO
lO
koT •
kO
kO
kO
kO
kO
kO
kO
ki!&
kO
kO
kO
kd
kd
yH
tH ■»-<
r-< Tt
tH
tH
tH
th
tH
t-4
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
tH
rH
tH
o
to
tH
iH
©a ^
©a
CO
1H ©1
CO
kO
CO
CO
tH
tH
©a
lO
»o
kO CD
CO
CD
CO
l>
CO CO
CO
00
00
00
CO
05
S
tH
tH
tH
td
©a
CO
i>
t>
t-
t“* !>•
1:^
t-
b- HH
tH
IH
»>
tH
S'*
©a
CO
00
'Cj*
QO
CD
00
iS
CO
§
C<l
©a «
©a
©a ©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a ©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
<
<
<
<
<1
00
a o
©a CO
kO
CD
i>»
CD <Sa
o
tH
©a
fiO
kO
©a
CO
o
IH
C35
kO
o
CO
tH
T-rf
tH
tH
ym4
tH tH
©»
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
©a
CO
C©
asssi
>
>
>•
sssa
>
254
Conspectus of Text-Units
A29S.2 1602 1 . 5.15 230.30 A 156.3
CoDHpectus of Text- Units
255
Ci OS O
»o
THTH<r-l<MeC*^iOiOCDt»OOCS „(MCO ^COl>»b-CO
i0i0ini00i0»0i0»0t0>0v00«0«0^cocc«00
.OOSOSOSGSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSO
o3 ^ S' ri
CO CO «<t» JS
wo U5 »jS 2 S
'S to ^
** to CO to
to CO wo eo
CO wo . . uO
• nO ja ^
! CO CO ** |5 lO vO 'O
tH *-' gg c> -t MS
, 53 ^ ^ no ts 's'
I C' !>- O ® 00 OS rQ
CO eo 00 CO CO o
wo wo K <2 »o »o g
MS wo
rO CO
*« o
. O os' ^
tw 03
^ (OJ CO
- eo CO -
'O I-X r-i ^
tOCDt-CPS OCMOOeO ^to
. . ,'TjJ-^QqTHv-tTHG««Ot>;CSiH‘rH
<;OtOCDtO * * *t>-’t>t>^l>^t-^t'^lr^COcda5od<j6
COCQCOCO • - -coeococococococococococo
Oa<M<M(N Oi|(M£M<MO4ff4(M03CN(M«Ni<W
WOIOG0003 (MWOt-O
oi<?3fiKfe>3 ' * 'cioifficNcicoeoeococO’^’^
00 00 00 , OS o —
O O O ; O rH tH
to to to to <© CO
•to ^’Htoto ’totototoco®^
CM x}< CO CO WO Tj<
<M£Mesicflieoeococoeocococococoeococo'«i<'^’^
WOwOiOUOtOWOwOsOsOwOuOwOuOWOUOUOWOsawOWO
»>co H>'^*oooi>>ooasO'r-t<MeO'«*(»ocoi>.aoosoTHo«coao
r-iwO J^iOWO^OWOwOWOCOtOtOCOCOtXJCOtDtOtOt-fr-'t’-b-*-
ef(l6cd) cf. 80.7 cf. 68
Recons true-
256
Conspectus of Text -Units
T-t CVl
t t, ^
o S s o
04 D.
tH ^ ^
(m" s<r ^
O ruS ja
O CSi ^ rQ O
Ip 00^
*5& o O O O 1H
e.© ^ ^ ^ ^
Ltd io »o ua >o lO
nd
,o -n ^
cjc)»ocob-e3«>c»o
GO o oj o cr» o>
CO CO cc eo CO CO
oa (M OJ CM (M CJ
^ Vi A X X >i
tH CO CO »0 iO to
■<1 <t^ <1^
. ® O iH
>is to lO
UO lO lO
lOrH(MGM-HT-< ’lOt^
*io»o
I
SNrHGMC0'sJ<»O»OiOl>’
^«SI<MO^CM<M<N<MOa
T-tcOtOtOtOtOtOtOtO
CftO tHI -^lOXOtOCOC^
CMCO t^ eo^eocococococo
toco i^ to'^tocototococo
O O to t>* 00
tc»i0i»00i0»40»0
wo rr> O O
• cj> *> S 52 S
oo. -< ocu ^
lO to l> OO OS o
•fcp> VW v— W W* V— ' M4 GW r-i «3
t>-t-t>tr-t^COOOaOrT-(C»THOvlODCMQO
CO 05 O -rH iO
rH (N CO CO tH
'CO
o ^ "««*< Hi -tH
COtHOOOOOO
J CO CO CO CO CO CO
-<J <<j -<} hJ
tH CM CO -ii* »0 to
Con.spectus of Text- Units
257
X X i< x X y, y: i< X X y, Pi y, y,
X X X X X
OOrMjOt-OOCMCOxOQO'r-lCfSiO <£>!>•
WYHirMTHiHCNC4G‘lC'l<M_iNCOCOCOcOCO’-^
eocococococococfi cowcocococoeoco'^di
COCOQOQOCOOOQOaOGOQOQOowoOOOOOQOCO
— ' tH CO *tj<
lO luo ui »cJ
«5 «0 CO CD CO
^ tH th tH rH
^ '<*1 -<J -<j
no
‘
r ^
no
rcJ
a
*
• ci
o
CJ
<3
• JO o
. rcJ
X!
o
w
(M
wo
MO
CO
CO
CO
'k_,' •
CO
.
W
<M *
1 CO
CO
CO
:
* -=H ^
1
to
WQ
wo
WO
id
uo
to
o
lO
wo
»o to
to
wo
wo
wO
iQ
WO
lA
wo
\o
wo
\a
»o to
*o
MO
wo
MO
" o
3
eS
00
o
la
tH iD C.) CO
. CN
CO
tCD
t>
b-
00
00
tH
* tH
(M
iH
CO
tH
tH
C»
iH
o
CM
T-)
cd
. cd
cd
cd
cd
cd
cd
cd
♦ cd
(d
cd
cd
cd
cd
td
l>
h-
* b-
b-
b-
b-
b-
w
• b-
b-
fc-
b-
i-
b»
b-
b«
(M
(M
OJ
Ol
(M
03
C3
C3
03
(M
(M
CM
(N
(M
<N
CO
CO
00
03
CJ
* iH
▼H
CO
tH
o
T-i
o
03
03
00
00
cd
00
00
00
cd
’ 00
od
od
od
od
cd
od
od r ‘ ’
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CD
CO
CO
CO
cO
CO
CO
o
CO * ’ ‘ *
»««»
O
M
tH 'rt , ^ CJ <M
"cft -;H , ’Tt<
o
..M ^ ^ lO CO l-
coococococococoeo
!>•
CO
CO 03 O O 1H 1H
*«!d< »a »o uo
CO CD CD CO CD O
>0 O CO
iiO MO >0
CO CD CO
, It- OO
lO >0 MD
CO CD CO
iHiHTHeo^»OCOI>
tHI (N CO WO CO
^ >0 uD vO
!> t» i> i>* lr»
l> O- b- b- t- b*
tOMDtOwOWDwOwOwOiOkOtOiiOiiOtO
^ CO CO 00 CO O tH
CO oo' oo' 00 00 CO
o
' ^
O T-? CN CO
Jj T-< T-( TH tH
Q
CQ
QOOSO-MiMCOrdiiOCO
•r-lr-<CPlCf«O3<?IC«CMCar0
rt
Ed^erton, Pa&catantra. II,
17
Eeconstruc
258
Conspectus of Text-Units
CHAPTER IX
CRITICAL NOTES ON THE TANTRAKHYAYIKA
Purpose of this chapter. — In the course of my studies I have
noted many corrections which, as it seems to me, must be made
in the edited texts of the various Pancatantra versions. Especially
numerous are these corrections in the edition of the Tantra-
khyayika. For this reason, and also because of the special
importance of the Tantrakhyayika, I have thot it worth while
to make a list of the changes which I should advocate making
in this one text, — or rather, in the parts of it which correspond
to parts of the reconstructed original: for I have made no effort
to criticize the text in its unoriginal parts. — Occasional correc-
tions in the editions of other versions will be noted in the
appropriate places in my Critical Apparatus.
Emendations in the text of the Tantrakhyayika. — The writer
would propose the following emendations in the printed text of
the Tantrakhyayika. None of the readings proposed occur in
any of the manuscripts so far as recorded. In a few cases the
emendations have been proposed previously by others; these
will be noted specifically. For the reasons for the emendations,
see my Critical Apparatus in each case. All the emendations
occur in parts of T which correspond to passages of the re-
constructed original. References are to page and line of Hertel’s
editio princepSi and to book and section or verse of my recon-
struction,
P. 13, 1. 5 5 1 vs 42. for (with Thomas, JMAS. 1910, p. 1849).
P. 72, 1. 16; II § 73. Sprcchat for aprcchat (JAGS. 88. 287 f.).
P. 73, 1. 17 ; II § 86. nirvedakata^amukham for ‘kiti’auam Skhmm {JAGS*
38. 288).
P. 74, 1. 15; II § 97. yato for ito {JAGS. 38. 288).
P. 76, 1. 11; II § 115. vySpSdya for mss. vyadhSvya, vy^dhEdya^ hatvE
(ed. viddhvE); SP vyapEdya (v. 1. hatvE).
P, 81, 1. 15; II vs 35. so hyah for toyab (Tp; JAGS. 38. m).
17^
260
Chapter IX: Critical notes on the Tantrakhyayika
P. 8a, ]. 6; II vs 41. °para° for «vara« {JAOS, 88. 289).
P. 101, 1.4; II vs 81. (Kead yasya with mss. for kasya, see p. 2B2;)
priyajanasamagamana iia syub for ed. jiriyasvajaiiasaiiigama na syuh [mss.
priyajanasamagama- (R°ma)-na (P °iaas, p °jQas) syuli] (./.40/S'. 88. 290f.).
P. 114, 1. 23; III vs 29. atlia vyavasitanujna for mss. atlia vyavasatanus-
nas (Hertel eni. ayavyayarii sadanu^naih).
P. 123, 1.11; III vs 51. ahifisanamako for °ka (doubtless misprint).
P.126, 1.14; III § 129. svarupaili for sva°.
P. 133, 1. 17; HI vs 72. °nabhijfieya for °jfiaya of mss. (Hertel em. °jfiaya).
P. 138, 1. 6 ; III vs 87. ^bijasat kapotad (with Kautiliya) for mss. °bijaka
(°eka) sapotad, Hertel em. ‘^bijanaih kapotad.
P. 142, 1. 25 ; III vs 107. Insert ea at end of pada a, with Puimabhadra.
P. 143, 1. 26; III vs 113. vi^itajvaram . . . ivavasitabharam for visati
jvaram . . . ivavasitasaram.
P. 144, 1. 7; III vs 115. Read ’caia° for cala°V
P. 150, 1. 20; IV vs 11. naivati (Thomas), or nativa, for nati.
P. 158, 1. 8; V § 30. daridryado^asahayataya for ^dosasaha® (so ras.;
Hertel em. ‘^do^d asaha°).
IlnfortTiiiate emendations made by Hertel in the text of Tantra-
khyayika.— Following is a list of emendations made by Hertel,
in the parts of T which coiTespond to original passages, which
I find it impossible to accept In nearly all cases I think the
correct reading is found in some or all of the mss. In a very
few instances I suggest different emendations.— I do not include
here Mse emendations in parts of the T text which do not
correspond to parts of the original. It will be understood, how-
ever, that I am not here dealing with what I take to be the
text of the original Pancatantra^ but only with the text of T.
In some cases it coincides with the original text, in others not.
The fact that a different reading is indicated for the original is
no reason for abandoning a possible reading of T, if supported
by all the T mss. — For fuller discussion of the points involved
see my Critical Apparatus. References are to page and line of
Hertel’s editio princeps, and to book and section or verse of
my reconstruction.
P. 6, 1. 1; I § 12, iiivaikalyatSiii ; read with mss. na vai kaP {cf. Pji iia
kalyataili).
P, 6, 1. 10; I §20. malmntarti garjitasabdam; mss. garjitam, perhaps to
be kept in spite of irregular gender? Irregularities of gender are not
unknown elsewhere in T.
P. 12, L 2; I vs 82. ’bliinanditavyab; mss. ’bhisandbitavyab (vv. 11. '^man^,
°dit®), which I think may be kept; it is again a grammatical irregularity,
but not unkjue as such.
tlnfortuiiatG emendations in the text of TantrakhjS'yika 261
F. 16, L 16; 1 § 94. pratyapalirtamanab; mss. pratyapa® or (p) pratyali";
read the latter. See next.
P. 15, 1. 17*, I § 94. pratyapahrtamaiio; mss. pratyapa° or (p E) pratyalF;
read the latter. See preceding.
P, 18, 1.11; I §134. °parisravana°; read with mss. °parisravana°.
P. 22, 1. 6; I § 187. Three emendations in the text in one line; Winter-
nitz WZKM. 25. 57 rightly points out that the mss. are quite con*ect.
Her tel ZDMG. 69. 296 f. withdraws two of the emendations but sticks to yii
for ye, failing to see, even after Winternitz’s ci-iticism, that ya is singular,
not plural,
P. 23, 1. 8; I § 202. saihprapto; mss, sSiiipratarli, which read,
P. 25, 1. 6; I § 231, arohata; mss. aruhata, which read. Thomas queried
the emendation, and Hertel in reply (F'.ZiCM. 25. 12) said: “Die tf-Form
ist grammatisch falsch.” It is true that rohati is the regular form; but
ruhati is not unknown elsewhere, Boehtlingk in pet lex. gives it “for
metrical reasons”; Whitney {Boots) gives ruhati -te E-f-* Since the mss.
of d' are unanimous they should be followed.
P. 26, 1. 3; I § 247. Ed. mainly with a mss. aham evopayena v^^apada-
yiinii siidiam (mss. sihha) iti. The correct reading is that of p: siilham evopu-
yena vyapa^ iti. So SP and Pn (SP evopayantareiia; Pn eva, om upayena).
P. 26, 1. 11; I § 253. vy-acintayat; mss. ’py acP (E ’dhyaci®); read ’py.
P. 27, 1, 7 ; p. 34, II. 2, 3, 23; p. 47, 1. 6; I §§ 263, 810, 312, 317, 455. drogdbu-
-mati (or -biiddhi); mss. a drogdha-, p drugdha-. Eead with p.
P. 31, 1. 7; I § 292. surabhi; mss. p surabhigandhaih (so read), a surabhi
sngandbaiii. Gf. Pn surabhigandhi. Omit ca, added in ed.
P.32, 1.6; I §302. madasramanidraparitakayo; mss. ®kale, so read.
P. 35, 1. 23; I vs 95. bhavanty akaranavasena; mss. bhavanti ka°, perhaps
to be kept?
P. 40, 1. 2; I § 353. mss. add kartum (« vihitum or ®tam) after arahdhab;
ed. omits the word without reason.
P.40, 1.10; I § 363. vijflapyase, svamina; a mss. '^naiii; the correct
reading is that of (5, vijfiapyab svami (punctuation after, not before, the
last word).
P. 43, 1. 12; I § 394, velEplavanSn; read with mss. "plavanan.
P. 45, 1. 14; I § 428. matimvErito ; mss. omit mati; so read.
52, 1. 2; I §471. niitravise^atati; mss. « “vise^bj P ®visle§ab; read
the latter.
P.55, 1.3; I §501. nSmEikab sarthavahasuto yah; read with E nama
yah sartha®; other mss. nEmaikab &c. without yah*
P. 60, 1. 9; I § 570. bhojane; read with mss. see p. 96 above.
P. 61, L 6; I § 584. vimaxiitaih, mss. visarpitaih. Winternitz WZKM,
25. 57 pointed out that the reading of the mss. is correct,, and this is
admitted by Hertel ZDMG. 69. 296. I would add that the Arabic Ycrsions
support the mss. reading.
P.61, 1.12;I §585.parErdhyagiiJ3ianmdaparo. Eead with «mss.parlrdhya-
gu^paro {p °paragupo). Hertel’s emendation spoils the sense, which he
failed to understand.
202
Chapter IX: Critical notes on the O^anMldiySyika
P. 64, 1.7; II § 6. apasyat tadadhi^thaiiavasinam &c. No ms. has tad,
which is unnecessary [JAGS, 38. 276).
P. 65, 1. 21; II § 23. mok^ayiteti; read with mss. °yatiti {JA08, 38. 276).
P. 67, 1. 2; II vs 6. badhyante; mss. badh^ See JAGS. 38. 276.
P. 67, 11. 18, 19; II § 36. Read with mss. mS tavan mamasya chidyantam
(all mss. but R chind*^). See JAGS, 38. 276.
P.67, 1.20; II § 37. svavyasananapek^aih; read with R Osanopeksaih
(corrected from ®saiiapeksani; so other mss, omitting sva).
P. 67, I. 23; II §39. ammli; mss. ayaiii, keep (*7.408'. 38. 277).
P. 70, 1.22; II § 60. tram in no mss. and not needed; JAGS, 38. 277.
P. 71, 1. 5; II § 62. pratyayito; mss. pratyarthito, which may be kept as
the Treading, tho the original undoubtedly read pratyayito; see p. 93 f.
P. 71, 11. 9, 10; II § 66. Read with p mss. cittasaihgamam vrddhaye, na
punar vittam. prabhutan api &c. See JAGS, 38. 277.
P. 73, 1, 15; II §85. pimar apy, inserted without ms. authority, should
be omitted, along with the following Sha, which R omits.
P. 74, 1.6; II §92. tlrthabliGta; read with mss, tirthapHta (P tivra'').
P. 74, 1. 7; ir § 92. Mrava^ for mss. °dravya°, which keep. JAGS. 38. 278.
P. 74, 1, 14; II § 96. 4e§aih suguptaiii are found in no ms. and are wholly
unnecessary.
P. 79, L 1; II § 141. tad brahmahrdayaih yasyasau; mss. a tad brahman
suvarj^am, yasySsau (so read); p hrdayasyapy asau for yasyasSiu.
P, 79, 1. 10; II § 145. akhyane; read with mss. °te.
P. 79, L 17; II § 151. mamadyangulakasySpy utpatane; mss. « °kasyot-
patane (so read), p °kasyadyutpa° or “kasyabhyutpa'^.
P- 82, 11. 3—4; II § 154. yat; read with mss. yas. See *74.08. 38. 278.
P. 86, 1. 18; II vs 63, ’nubaudhat; read with mss. ’nubandbah. See p. 94 ff.
P. 87, 1. 25; II § 169. hy SyEnti; read with a kva ySnti (p to same
effect). See p. 124.
P. 88, 1. 7; II vs 61. pauru^Sc ca parihipam; read with « paurusavihinam
(P puxu^aparihinam).
P. 97, 1. 20; II § 188. citrgfigab; read with mss. ’^ga.
P. 98, 1. 7 ; 11 § 195. kilasaktacarma°; read with p kile ^ikya° (a kile
sakya°).
P. 101, 1. 10; II § 213. suvar]^ena; read with a anena (p varnena).
P. 102, 1.2; II § 217. asvasthyam; read with p Esvasthyam (a asvSstyam).
P. 103, 1. 14; II § 222, niyati; read with mss, niyata.
P. 104j 1.4; II Ys 81. kasya . . . priyasvajanasaihgama na syub: see
above, p, 260.
P. 104, 1. 6; II vs 82. pathya^ana; read with mss. patbyadhana.
P. 106, 1. 8; n vs 86. askbalitaih; read with mas. °tas.
P. 105, 1. 7; II vs 87, vi^rSme; read with mss. °mo.
P, 106, ]. 13; II vs 92. utpSda®; read with mss. utpata°.
P. 108, I. 8; III § 6. uliika upalabdhadurgavyttantah; read with mss.
ultikopalabdha®.
P. 108, L 13; III §8. tadvighStSyeti; read with mss, R and z (corr.) tad*
vighato yatlia bliavati (z om bhavati); other mss. (p and r) tadvighato yadi.
Unfortunate emendations in the text of TantrSkhj^Syika 263
P. 110, 1. 12; III vs 3. asarne asamopanamanam aho maliat kas^am. No
ms. has aho; it should be omitted, with elision of a- in asamo”.
P. Ill, 1. 5; III §21. yuddhe; read with mss. ^dhaih.
P. 113, ]. 23; III vs 20. na kantim; read with p na cagamam (so SP, N,
and so the meter requires); a na kantih.
P.114, 1.2; III vs 22. na cecchanty ayasomisram; mss. all °ti yaso°,
which should perhaps be kept, tho 1 have hesitatingly adopted Hertel’s
emendation.
P.114, 1.23; III vs 29. ayavyayaih sadanu^naih; read atha vyavasila-
niijila; mss. ^satanusnas.
P.115, 1.17; III §27. saphalaili; read with E phalavad; other mss,
phalaih.
P.116, 1.11; III §35. ®nyatraiva°; read with mss. ^yathSiva®.
P. 117, 1. 15; III § 43. moghaib d:f§tidigdahaih karoty apadesak^ama^ ca;
mss.so’y^hi drstadigdaliarh karoty avyapadesa° (a apadesa") ca. Read with p.
P. 122, 1. 3; III § 89. agatah inserted without ms, authority; omit it.
P. 122, 1. 6; III § 94. desabhupam; read with mss. °rC[pam.
P. 123, 1. 2; III § 101. sthane; read with a sthana- (p sthavara-)*
P. 123, 1. 4; III § 102. samnikr^i^u ; read mitli mss.
P. 125, 1. 12; in § 119. svayam; read with « tarn; p samam.
P. 125, 1. 18; III § 123. yatam; read with E stliitam (other mss, omit).
P. 126, 1.4; III § 126. saihpraptau, inserted without ms. authority; omit.
P.127, 1.12; III § 141. nyavedayan; read with p nivedayanti sma; a
nivedayan.
P. 128, 1. 24; III vs 63, sarvotpattisanirddhasya; read with a and E
sarvopadhP; other mss. santopadhP, mantrausadhP.
P. 132, 1. 2; III § 191. eva inserted without ms. authority; omit.
P.132, 1.3; III §192. avahasya inserted without ms. authority; omit.
P.142, 1.25; III vs 107. vidya inserted without ms. authority; omit.
See p. 98 above.
P. 149, 1. 3; IV §17, apa; read with E agamat; p aha.
P. 149, 1. 5; IV § 18. valivadanakaprityatikrantavelo; read with mss.
°prityati°.
P. 149, 1. 23; IV §27. bahiidhaivaih; mss, bahu dtivaiii, read so.
P. 150, 1. 2; IV vs 6. kartuti; read with mss. kartuih.
P. 158, 1. 7; V § 29. ca inserted without ms. authority; omit.
Unfortunate choices made by Hertel between variant manuscript
readings in the text of Tantrakhyayika. — Following is a list of
cases in which I should make a different choice between various
manuscript readings from that made by Hertel in editing the
TantrakhyUyika. Many of these differences of opinion are due
to the different views which Hertel and I hold of the relations
between the TantrakhyEyika manuscripts, and of the relation
of Tantrakhyayika to other Pancatantra versions. Thus, whereas
^ertel always tends to prefer Toe to TP even when the latter
264
Chapter IX; Critical notes on the TantrakliyEyika
is supported by other versions, I hold that a reading of any
T ms. which is supported by other versions is more apt to he
original than one which is not thus supported^ and that in
general is a rather better representative of the T tradition
than Ta. — The cases here listed all occur in sections of T which
correspond to parts of the reconstructed original. References
are to page and line of Hertel’s editio frincejjs^ and to book
and section or verse of my reconstruction,
P. 3, 1. 11; KM § 1. mihilaropyaiii ; v, 1. witli Jn mahP, so read. So also
at the beginning of Book I and II; in spite of some variations in the
other versions, 1 believe that the original was everywhere mahP.
P, 4, 1. 4; KM § 7. ’nekasastravikhyatakirtir; read with p sisya for
sastra, ef. Spl chittrasaihsadi labdhaJdrtih (tho, to be sure, Pn supports
the a reading).
P, 7, 1. 7; I § 24. tad atra; read tatra with p, SP, Jn.
P. 10, 1. 22; 1 § 49. ca; read hi with p, SPa, Jn.
P. 11, 1. 14; I § 57. svamin, padanaih; read svamipadanaih with p {cf,
H, Jn devapadanaili).
P. 13, 1. 10; I vs 44. &tram sastraih; transpose these words with p, SP,
K, H, Pn.
P.13, 1. 17; I vs 46. bhrtah; read with p blirtyah (better sense).
P. 13, 1. 19; I vs 47. mu^ako grhajato ’pi hautavyo ’nupakarakah; read
with 2, R mtl^ikg grhajatapi hantavyanupakariiji; so essentially Jn.
P. 14, 1. 20; I § 76. ita^ cetab; add ca with v. h
P. 14, 1. 22; I § 78. %rdayah; add ca vdth p, SP.
P, 16, 1.9; I § 87. pratinivartitum adakto ’ntarlinardhakayo vihasya;
read with p pratmivrtyantarlinam avahasya (supported in sense by SP).
P. 15, 1. 15; I § 94. atyantasvSkarabhinyastEh; so p. Read either ‘^svakanP
with a, or ^svak§xa°. The word is kara or kara, “tax’'; Hertel misunder-
stands it. The Kautiliya text has here karibhinyastah*
P. 16, 1. 18; I § 106, ca; omit with p, Jn.
P. 17, 1, 14; I § 122, tad atra: read tatra with R, Jn, Hp.
P. 23, 1. 11; I § 205. After prak^pamah add with p iti, tatrSiko ’bravit
(supported in sense by Pa), In the same line after Esadya add atra with p,
SP, H.
P. 23, 1. 12; 1 § 205. kathayEm asub, omit with p (it is pleonastic).
P. 24, 1. 3; 1 § 214. enam; read with p etam, since the word is emphatic
(first in the sentence, and followed by api).
P. 24, 1. 17; I §224. -atrEvasake; i*ead with p -asyEvase, of which reading
Hertel says “ eine Anderung, die nicht zum SchluB der ErzEldung paJ3t.”
It is true that it does not fit the conclusion of T, in which the crow
deposits the ornament in its own nest, not in the snake’s hole. But all
other versions make the place of deposit the snake’s hole, which is a priori
better; and it seems to me that Tp’s reading at this point indicates an
Unfortunate choices between variant manuscript readings
265
original agreement with the rest. Ta has changed asya to atra to make
it fit the altered conclusion of T,
P. 25. 1. 10; I vs 63. abiidhasya; read abuddhes tu with v. 1. of p; cf.
SPj N, H, Jn nirbuddhes tu.
P. 25, 1. 17; I § 241. ubhajopadravab; read with § iibhayata upa°.
P. 26, 1. 3; I § 247. See p. 261 above.
P. 27, 1. 16; 1 vs 67. tu; read ca with p, Pn.
P. 27, 1. 24; I vs 68. svanurakto; read sva"^ with a, Pn.
P.28, 1.2; 1 §269. A sentence found in p and Jn is omitted in the
edition with a; read with
P. 28, 1. 5; I § 270, me; read mama with p, SP, H, Jn.
P. 30, 1. 17 : 1 § 286. Before krmayab add ca with p, Pn.
P. 31, 1. 4; I §288. After rajfias, add gybe with p; Pn vasagrhe.
P, 31, 11.10,11; I §295. iha, rnahsan}^, and (1,11) ca, to be omitted
with p, Jn. ‘‘ Blood,” not “ meat ” or “ flesh,” is what a flea wants.
P, 35, 1. 23; I vs 95. romodgamab ; read with p ro^od”.
P.38, 1.5; I vs 110. sii^yantime, so Tp and SP ed. with p; read with
'Fa, SPa, N, Pn klisyantmie (SPa °ty ete),
P. 39, 1. 14; I § 346. abhyudgamam ; read with p, Pn °dyamam.
P. 39, 1. 18; I § 360, tada tena*^; read with P, Pn tadauena®.
P. 40, 1. 10; I § 363. vijfiapyase. svamina (a ‘^naih); read with p vijliapyab
svami.
P. 40, 11. 16, 17; I vs 116, mahapradhanaiii, sarvapradhanoj^v ; read with
most mss. and SP, N, H mahapradanarh,— with all mss. except P and all
other versions sarvapradanesy.
P.41, 1.12; 1 §376. akalpakayo; read with all mss. but P, and SP,
So, Jn, alpakayo (SP, So, Spl svalpa°).
P, 41, 1. 13; I § 377. Add evam after gomayur with i®, SP.
P. 41, 1. 16; 1 § 380. akalpakayo; read with all lass. but p alpa°, sujjported
in sense by SP.
P. 42, 1. 17; I vs 120. kiiryakaryany; read "karyam with p, HP,
N, Jn.
P.43, 1.9; I §390. Add kasmih^cit after asti, with p, Jn.
P. 43, 1. 14; I § 396. Add na at end of line, with p, Pp; this seems to
be required by the sense, which is at least poorer without it,
P.44, 1.13; I §406. Add pathi after punas with p, supported by Ks
and in sense by other versions.
P.45, 1.11; I §421, matsyabandlxaih ; read ^bandbanaih with p, Pii.
P. 45, 1. 16; I §426. Add saparijanair before matsya° with p (Pi> pari-
janaaametair),
P. 46, 1. 7; I §436. p adds mama (cf. Pij me) before manda% and after
it a phrase supported in sense by the other versions. Read so.
P. 46, ]. 10; I § 439. ®vigra;hEya; read <^vigrahasya with p, Pi?.
P. 46, 1. 12; I § 441. °rai?a®, vwuni; i'ead with p, Pi? “saibgrEma® and
narSyanena.
P. 51, 1. 22; I § 470. Add svEmino before xiico® with p, Pi?.
P.52, 1,5; I §472. kuvikalpam; read viviktam with p, SP, Pn.
266
Chapter IX: Critical notes on the TantraldiySyika
P. 52, 1. 15; T vs 144-. kalusena (so To:, SPa, N); read kapatena with T|3,
SP eel. (p), Pn, and a])parently Pa.
P.52, 1,24; I vs 146. sasaukasya (a, with N); read sasafikasya with j5,
SP, Pn.—vyomny eva with a; read nimiiaiva with p (Pn niinnasya, SP,
N nicaiva). See above, p. 109.
P. 53, 1. 19; I § 482. Omit raahan with |3 and all other versions.
P, 54, 1.2; I §489. varyamano; read iii-var® with [3, Pn.
P. 55, 1. 13; I § 508. sahaparasataiii ; read sahaparaih sa° with [3, Pn.
P. 56, 1. 7; I §522. atravyavaharadinaranam; read with g atra vyavahare
(z ‘^raih) dP.
P.56, 1.14; I §532. tatlia ca; read with g, Pn sadhu cedam ucyate.
P. 68, 1. 17; I § 556. va6sab; read with g, Pn svavailsah (c/*. SP svakiilam).
P.59, L 6; I §558. Add tava before caritena, with ms. P (of a) and
BP, Pu.
P.62, 1.13; 1 vs 172. hhytyah; read with «(!), SP, N, H, Pn bhrtyah.
P. 64, 1. 8; II § 6. pak§ihandhain; read with « paksibandhasavaram (with
corruptions in mss.), cf. Pij pak§ibandlianimittaih . . . vyadham.
P. 64, 1. 15; 11 § 12. itas cetah; add ca with g.
P. 68, 1. 1; II § 39. tat sadhu nayata (so a, with v. 1. na | yata); read
with g tac casadhu, yata.
P. 69, h 5; II §56. Add maya after saha with g, SP.
P. 71, 1. 2; ir vs 22. ca; read tu with g, SP, N, H, Pn.
P. 73, 1. 1; II §80. ca tat; read gatab with g, Pn; cf, SP, Spl gatva.
P. 73, 1. 14; II §86. Insert sa aha with ms. IL
P.74, 1.2; II §90. Considerable insertion of g (see note in ed.) sup-
ported by Jn, Pa, should be put in text
P. 79, 1. 9; II § 144. ptirvakhyate se§am; read with g °tam ase^am.
P.79, 1.14; II vs so. bhavaty arthena balavan; read with g arthena
halavSn bhavaty; so SP, N, H, Jn except sarvo (by, or ’py) for hhavat3\
P, 81, 1.15; II vs 35. Eead this line with g (slightly cori’upt), SP, N,
H, Pn. See p. llOf.
P. 82, 1. 12; II vs 38. inriyamaijasya cihnaui ySni tiny eva yacatab;
read with g mri® ySny eva tani cihnani ya°. SP, N closer to this than to
the reading of T ed,
P. 86, 1. 4; II § 162. Add yas^ya before sirasy with g, Pa.
P. 86, 1. 7; II vs 50. Add jagati before jantob with g, N, H, and best
ms. of SP.
P. 87, 1, 15; II vs 57. Transpose dantSb ke^a, with g, SP, N, H, Pn.
P, 87, 1. 17; 11 § 168. Add ka4cit after satltm with g, Pn.
P. 88, 1. 16; 11 vs 63. paribhavavasaih; read °padaiii with g, SP, N, H, Pn.
P. 91, 1. 14; n vs 68. tad ananyathS; read na tad anyatha with g, SF,
N, H.
P. 95, 1, 24: II vs 70. prakkarmayati®; read with a prakkarma prati.
P. 94, L 14; II vs 73. jivanti nityarh puru^Ss; read with g, Pn ji° tc
satpiiru^as.
P. 94, I 19; 11 vs 74. lobhena lipt°; read with g lobhopahyt® (Pni lohho-
pahat°). * *
Unfortunate clioices between variant manuscript reading's
P. 95, 1. 2; II vs 76. va; read with |3 'pi.
P.98, 1.5*, IT §191. manthara; read with «, R mantharaka.
P.98, 1.6; II §194. tad upalabhyatam ixtplutya (subject in aceus.!);
read with (3 tad upalabhasvotplutya.
P. 98, 1. 10; 11 § 197. Add with p pasaehedanakarmanab after anabhijfiab.
P. 99, 1. 13; II § 203. anabhijfio; read with p, Pn abhijflo.
P. 99, 1. 14; II §204. Add na before vartate with ft, SP, Pn.
P. 101, 1. 6; II § 212, Add gaiidha after bhojana with fs, Pn.
P. 101, 1. 7; n § 212. ‘^drava°; read °dravya^ with a, see JAOS. 38.
278, 286.
P. 102, 1. 9; II § 220. Add idam before abhihitam with p, Pn.
P..102, 1. 11; II § 220. ato; read nSto with (3. See JAOS- 38. 286.
P. 104, 1. 13; II vs 84. nirantaraih; read °ra- with p, Pn (SP, N nirat-
yaya-).
P. 104, 1. 18; II §232. caranavakystaiii; read with P caranav apakysya
(Pn °nav akr^ya).
P. i05, 1. 4; 11 vs 86. hi; read ea with P, Pn.
P. 105, 1. 8; II §234. Passage in p (see note in ed.) should be put in
text; supported by Spl and Pa.
P.106, 1.7; II §236. Passage in p (see note in ed.) should be put in
text; supported by Pn and Pa.
P. 106, 1. 14; II § 240. Add with p sighrataraiii before ySsyati (supported
in sense by H, Spl, Ar).
P. 106, 1. 16; II § 242. Add with p, Pii anyac ca before abbylsopagate.
P. 108, 1. 7; III § 4. vayasab; read vayasarijab with z corr., R, and
BP, Jn {cf. So kakarajab, K§ vayasadhipatib).
P. 108, 1. 9; 111 § 6. Add kakanarh after te^arh, with a, supported by SP.
P. 110, 1. 10; III § 18. aranya-; read with p aranye (better sense).
P. 113, 1. 23; III vs 20. kantim (em. for a kantib); read cagamam with p,
SP, N.
P. 115, 1. 17; III § 27. a^atkarnam; read with a
P. 117, 1. 8; III § 42. Add atha before asav with p, Jn.
P. 117, 1. 15; III §43. apadesa*"; read with P avyapadesa^
P. 118, 1. 4; III § 49. prenti; read pre^ta(b) with p, SP, Pn.
P. 118, 1. 18; III V8 38. axthld; read arthan with P, Pn.
P. 119, 1. 8; III V8S 41 and 42. These vss of p emitted in ed. but should
be put in the text. The first is supported by 1> and Pa (and So?), the
second by Pn.
P. 119, 1. 10; in § 61. asakyam anena; read with R asakyo nena.
P. 120, 1. 1 ; III § 64, and vs 44. p corruptly represents original, with
support in SP, H, Pa; ed. with a omitB. See p. lllff.
P. 120, 1, 13; HI § 72. Add eko after bhavEn with p; Jn ekaki.
P. 122,^ 1.3; III § 90. Add with p sentence omitted in ed. (see note), but
supported by Jn, Sy (Herfcel misunderstands the meaning).
P. 128, 1. 2; III § 101. upallis^a-*; read with p
P. 128, 1. 7; III vs 49. kadEcid api sEdhubhib; read with p mS no dharmo
hato vadhit, supported (with varying corruptions) by SP, N.
268
Chapter IX: Critical notes on the TantrHkhyayika
P. 124, 1. 11; III §112. Add maya before samauye with p, Jn.
P. 125, 1, 7; III § 116. saihpradharyatam, yeneha nagacchanti; read
with p, seemingly supported by Pa, saihpradharyadhinia yavat te (v- 1.
yavanto) ’sman prati saihnipataya nehagacchanti.
P.126, L17; III §133. Add me before or after kinicid, with p, J^n,
P.127, 1.11; III §140. mandamandaih; read mandaih-mandarh withp, Jn,Ho.
P. 129, 1. 2; III § 155. Add apy after satrur with p.
P. 163 f. (Appendix II); III vs 66 £P., with Story 6. Omitted in ed. with a;
read essentially with p, supported by all other versions. See p. 63, note 6,
P.129, 1.17; III §176. goyugalam; read goyugam with p, SP, Pn,
P. 130, 1. 2; III § 181. pratibudhyeta; probably read with p, SP« ])rati-
budhyate, in spite of Pii budhyeta.
P, 130, 1. 7; in §189. anyac ca (a, z); read with R, Pn api ca.
P. 132, 1. 2; III § 191. sa (z, p); read so ’py with ,R, SP.
P. 133, 1. 5; III § 212. Add with p mulotkhataya after sarvatha; Pn
mdlotkhata vayaih.
P. 134, 1.8; III §227. Speech of ascetic in p (see note in ed.) omitted
in ed. with a, but supported in sense by Jn and Pa.
P. 134, 1. 15; III § 231. Add bhagavMl after api with p, SPa.
P.135, 1.9; III §243. svavinasay°; read with p, Pn svavahsavinasay^
P. 135, 1. 15; III § 248. Add kytaharavihara after °oluka, with p;
supported in sense by SP, Pn.
P. 136, i. 19; III § 259. ’tivahitat ; read nitab with p, Spl, K^; Pn yapitab.
P. 137, 1. 2 ; III vs79* valayaranitau ; read °racitau with p ; Pn raeitavalay aib.
P, 188, 1. 14; III vs 90. upayati na mtido^ab; read with R °yanti, with p
Mo^ab, both supported by SP, N, Pn.
P. 138, 1. 15; III vs 90. kiih; read kaih with p, SP, N, Pn.
P.138, L 16; III vs 90. strikrte;read°ta withR, N; Pn svikrta, SP strigata.
P. 139, 1. 8; III § 270. Add rSti-Su after adya with P, SP, Pn, Pa.
P. 139, ]. 8; III §§ 271, 272. Passage of p (see ed. note), supported by
Pp and Pa, should he put in text,
P.189, 1.11; III §276. Passage of p Tsee ed. note), supported by SP,
Pp, Pa, should be put in text.
P.148, 1.7; lY §5, tenaharepa; ms. R tatphalahirena, supported in
sense by SP, K§.
P. 162, 1.9; I V § 50. Add after "^abravit (p °alia) a sentence found in p
(see ed, note), largely supported by other versions, especially So.
P . 153, 1, 4; IV § 62. pratidinaaii ; read with p pratidivasaih jivami; the
verb seems required by the sense,
P. 167 f. (Appendix IV, end of Book IV); IV vss 20, 21, §§ 81, 86. Passage
of p omitted in ed, with oc, but supported by Pa. See p. Ill above.
P . 156, 1 9; V § 8. Sentence of p (see ed. note) should be added in text;
suilported by SP, and cf. Pa.
P. 167, ]. 6; V § 16. See note in ed.; variant of p supported in sense
by Pa (ten goats instead of twenty). Read with p.
P. 157, 1. 10; Y § 19. °vapanam; read with a°vSpanaiu (first suggested
by Thomas, and accepted by Hertel, WJ^KK 25. 23).
TRANSLATION
NOTE
Parentheses enclose parts of the translation which cannot be attributed
to the orig'inal with entire confidence. In other words, they correspond to
parentheses used in the Text (Volume I), so far as this is possible in the
translation.
Sqiiare brackets enclose matter added by the translator to make the meaning
clearer to western readers.
The’ numbering of sections and of verses (that is, of translations of San-
skrit verses) follows that of the text; see introduction to Volume I, That is:
numbers enclosed in parentheses indicate the prose sections of the original
Text into which I have divided it for convenience of reference; numbers
out of parentheses indicate what are, in the original, verses. The (paren-
thetized) numbers of the prose sections of the original precede the sections
to which they refer; the numbers of the verses of the original follow the
translations of the verses to which they refer. Each verse of the original is
made to form a separate paragraph in the translation.
INTRODUCTORY SECTION
To Manu, to Vacaspati, to Sukra, to ParaSara and his son,
and to Oai;iakya the wise — to [these] authors of the hooks of
the science of kingship he homag;e.^ T
(Visnusarman has mastered the cream of all the treatises on
the science of polity in the "world; and he too has composed
a fascinating treatise in these five hooks. 2.)
(1) (Thus runs the account of it.) There was in the south
country a city named Mahilaropya. (2) There dwelt a king
named Amarasakti.^ He was a Tree-of- Wishes granting tlic
desires of all suppliants. His feet were illumined hy a flood of
radiant beams from the crown jewels of noble kings [who
bovred before him]. He was completely skilled in all the ai^ts
(and verst in all the science of polity). (3) And he had three
sons, named Vasusakti, Ugrasakti, and Anekasakti,^ who w^ere
utter fools. (Now) when the king saw that they were ignorant
of (political) science, he called his ministers and took counsel
with them. (4) “(Sirs, you know already that these my sons
are utter fools.)
What profit is there in the birth of a son, if he be neither
wise nor virtuous? What can a man do with a cow which
neither gives milk nor calves? 3.
Better a miscarriage; better no intercourse whatsoever at
the proper seasons; better a stillborn child; nay, better oven
that a daughter be born; better a barren wife; better to enter
^ Manu, reputed author of the most famous Hindu law-book; V&caspati
“Lord of Speech,” a title of Bi^haspati, preceptor of the gods; ^ukra,
preceptor of the demons or Asuras; Pamtoa was the father of VySsa, the
reputed compiler of the Vedas and the Mahabharata; Clijakya, minister of
the famous emperor Candragupta and reputed author of the KiLu|ilIya
Arthaiastra (see page 274, note 2).
2 “God-might.”
® Roughly, “God- might,” “Terrible-might,” and “Manifold-might.”
272
Introductory section
upon the homeless [mendicant] state of life — than a foolish
son, tho he were handsome, rich, and powerful. 4.
(5) By what means, then, may their intelligence be awakened ?”
(6) (At this some of them said: “ Sire, it is well known that
the study of grammar requires twelve years; then, if that be
in a measure mastered, after it the systematic study of religion,
polity, and love^ may be taken up. So this is a sore task even
for intelligent folk; bow much more for the^ dull-witted!) (7)
(Now) in matters like this there is a brahman named Visnusarman,
who knows all (the facts of) the science of polity (, and whose
fame is spread abroad by his many pupils. Summon him and
let him take charge of the princes).” (8) (This plan was adopted,
and a minister summoned Vis^jiusarman, who came and saluted
the king with a benediction after the manner which brahmans
employ, and took his seat. And when he was comfortably
seated the king said to him:) (9) (^‘Brahman, I beg you to do
me the favor of making these ignorant princes second to none
in the science of polity, and I will requite you with a sum of
money.”) (10) (Thus spoke the king; but) Visnusarman (arose
and) said (to the king): (11) ‘‘Sire, (hear tliis my lion^s roar ! ®
I make this statement not as one covetous of money; and since
I am eighty years of age and my senses are all dulled, the
time for me to enjoy wealth is over. But in order to help you
I will undertake this as a trial of intellectual skill. So let this
day be written down!) (12) If within the space of six months
I do not make your sons completely verst in the science of
polity, then, Sir, you may (show me the door ® and) banish me
(to a distance of a hundred hastas’^).^^ (13) When the king
(and his ministers) hoard this (unbelievable promise on the
part of the brahman), in delight (and astonishment) he gave
^ The Hindus regard these three subjects as including all possible human
desires. Under arika, translated here “polity,” they include worldly success
of all kinds.
^ A common expression in India for a triumphant, confident, or exulting
declaration.
® Literally, “the way.”
A measure of length, about 18 inches. It seems that a longer distance
(if any specific distance) should be mentioned, unless it is meant to be
humorous, which is hardly likely. Only one of the versions names any
distance.
Introductory section
273
over the princes to Visnusarman with all deference. (14) (But)
the latter began to teach the king’s sons the science of polity
under the guise of stories, for which purpose he composed
Five Books (entitled The Separation of Friends, The Winning
of Friends, The Story of the Crows and the Owls, The Loss
of One’s Gettings, and Hasty Action).
(Here ends the Introductory Section.)
Bdgerton, PaiLcatantni. U.*
18
BOOK I
THE SEPARATION OF FRIENDS, OR, THE LION
AND THE BULL
(1) Now here begins this, the first book, called the Separation
of Friends, of which this is the opening stan^sa:
A great and growing love between a lion and a bull in the
forest was destroyed by an over-greedy and malicious jackal 1.
(2) The king’s sons said: ^^How was that?” Yisnu^arman
told this story:
(3) There was in the south country a city named MahilSropya.
(4) There dwelt a merchant named Vardhamanaka,^ who had
gained great wealth by lawful means. (5) One time this thot
occurred to him: “Even tho I possess great wealth, I must
increase my fortune. And it is said:
When a man has not got wealth, he should seek to get it;
when he has got it, he should guard it watchfully; when he
has guarded it, he should be forever increasing it; when he has
increast it mightily, he should bestow it on worthy persons. 2,
(6) ‘Get wealth when you have it not; guard what you have
got; increase what you have guarded; and bestow on worthy
persons what you have increast; this is what we are told to
do. (This is the way to live in the world.) (7) Now if a man
gets no wealth, he has nothing. But even if he has got wealth,
unless it be guarded, it is straightway lost (, for many are the
dangers to it). And if wealth be not increast, even tho used
sparingly, it wastes away like eye-pigment. [Yet] if it be not used
(when occasion arises), it is the same as if it were not gained.
(8) (Therefore a man should guard, increase, and use what he
has got.) And it is said:
^ Or Vardhamana. The name means approximately “Thrifty.”
* The quotation is from the so-called KHutiliya Artha^astra, a book on
the “Science of Polity,” attributed to CSpakya? see page 271, note 1.
Frame Story: Lion and Bull
275
Of goods that are acquired, distribution is the one true means
of preservation; it is like an outlet-drain for waters pent up
within the belly of a pond.” 3.
(9) Thus reflecting he collected a load of wares for Mathura
and departed (from the city on a trading journey, on an
auspicious day, and after taking leave of the elders of his
family). (10) And he had two draft-bulls harnest to the front
of his wagon-pole. Their names were Nandaka and Samjivaka.^
(11) Now as he proceeded he came to (a place in) a great jungle
wliere the water of a mountain waterfall came tumbling down
(, falling from a great distance,) and formed a muddy spot. And
(as luck would have it, it chanced that one of these bulls,) Saiiiji-
vaka, because he hurt one leg (, getting stuck) in the muddy place,
and because the load on the wagon was too heavy, sank down,
breaking the yoke. (12) And when the merchant Vardhamanaka
saw him, he was deeply distrest. And when he had waited for
three days and the bull did not recover, (IS) he appointed
guards for him and continued his journey into foreign parts
(as he had planned it; for he was aware that the jungle was
full of perils and wisht to save the rest of the caravan). (14)
But on the next day the cowardly guards (, who had charge over
the bull, also) came after him and said to him, falsely: “(Sir,)
yonder Saiiijivaka is dead (and we have burned him and per-
formed the other rites of burial).” (15) (And when the merchant
heard this, out of gratitude [for the bull’s services] he made
/ the offerings for the dead in his honor, and went on.) (16) But
Saflijlvaka was not fated to die yet. The cooling winds, mingled
with spray [from the waterfall], refresh! his body; he made
shift to get up, and (little by little) made his way to the hank
of the Jumna. (17) (And) there he ate the emerald-green grass-
tips and roamed about at will, and in a few days his frame be-
came (well-conditioned and) plump, and he regained his strength,
and his hump became fat as Shiva’s hull; and ho remained there,
every day tearing open the tops of the ant-hills with the strokes
of his pointed horns, and hellowiug loudly.
(18) Now in this forest (and at no great distance) there was
a lion named PiBgalaka.-^ Attended hy all the beasts, he enjoyed
® Approximately “Rejoicer” and ^‘EnUTener.”
* “ Tawny.”
18*
m
Bookl; Separation of Friends
the fruits of kingship in the forest, won hy his own prowess
(, and carried his head high, knowing no fear). And thus [it
is said]:
The king of heasts lives in solitude in the forest; he has
not the emblems of royalty and knows not the science of
polity; yet — so noble is his spirit — he is the fit object of
laudations declaring him a true king. 4.
No coronation, no consecration is performed by the beasts
for the lion; his power is acquired by his own prowess, and
the kingship of beasts falls to him naturally. 5.
(19) It came to pass that this lion was thirsty and went down
to the bank of the Jumna for a drink of water. (20) And
(while he was yet a great way off) he heard Samjivaka’s roar,
which was unlike anything he had heard before (and seemed
like an unseasonable clap of the thunder that comes at the
dissolution of the world). (21) And when he heard it his heart
was terror-stricken, and (without drinking of the water, but)
dissembhng his mien, he stopt still (in the neighborhood of
the Fig-tree of the Circles, taking the position of the Four
Circles,^ without saying a word). (22) (Now the position of the
Four Circles is as follows. The Circles are the Lion, the Lion's
Retainers, the Nakaravas, and the Kiihvpttas. Of these, the
lion alone is local ruler in all the places of the country —
villages, towns, cities, settlements, farming and mountain
hamlets, parks, villages granted to brahmans, woods, and
forests. There are a certain number of Lion^s Retainers, who
are the office-holders. The Kakarava-groups are the middle
classes. The Kimvpttas, of course, are those that occupy other
positions.) (23) Now this [lion] had two hereditary ministers,
jackals, named Karataka and Damanaka.® (24) (And they two
held a consultation together.) At this time Damanaka said (to
® Nothing is known of these “Pour Circles” except what appears from
this passage. Apparently they are supposed to be social divisions among
the inhabitants of the lion’s kingdom. They are perhaps conceived as
corresponding vaguely to the four main castes . of Hindu society, tho the
correspondence is certainly far from perfect. The words kakarava (“having
a crows voice”) and kiihuf'tta (“what-become?,” perhaps “miscellaneous
groups?”) are wholly obscure in application.
® The name Damanaka means something like “Victory” what Karataka
means is not clear.
Frame Story; Lion and Bull, — Story 1; Ape and Wedge 277
Karataka): Friend Karajaka, (see,) this our lord (Piiigalaka)
started out to get a drink; why has he stopt here? ” (25)
Karataka said: “ What business is that of ours? And it is said;
The man who tries to concern himself with what is not his
concern, he it is that lies slain, like the ape that pulled out
the wedge.” 6.
(26) Damaiiaka said: “How was that?” The other replied;
STORY 1; APE AND WEDGE
(27) There was a city in a certain region, and near it a
certain merchant had begun to build a temple. (28) The
(master-builders and the other) workmen who were employed
there went into the city (at noon-time to eat dinner). (29)
(Now) at that time a beam of (arjtma’-)wooi had been split
half way thru (by one of the workmen), and it was left held
apart by a wedge (of khadira-wooi) which was driven into it
by a mechanical contrivance. (30) And (it chanced that) a great
crowd of apes, who dwelt in the forest, came to the spot and
began playing about at random here and there (among the
tree-tops, the towers of the building, and the piles of wood).
(31) (But) in the course of this play one (of the apes), whose
hour of death was at hand, being of a silly disposition, climbed
upon the beam, so that his testicles hung down into the crack ;
and saying “Who drove this (wedge) in where it doesn’t
belong?”, he (took hold of it and) began to pull it out with
his hands. (32) What happened when the wedge came out
from its place, you know already (without my telling you).
(End of Story 1)
(33) “Therefore I say: A man (if he be wise) should shun
what is none of his concern.” (34) (And again he said:)
“Surely you cannot deny that we have enuf to live on, from
the remains of what [the lion] eats.” (35) Damanaka said:
“How, Sir, can you be content with (merely) getting enuf to
eat? Surely no one enters the service of the exalted except to
gain distinction. And this is well said:
To help their friends, and likewise to harm their foes, the
wise seek royal service. Who cannot supply the mere needs
of his belly? 7.
278
Book I; Separation of Friends
He truly lives, on whose life, the lives of many depend. Does
not even a crane fill his own belly with liis beak? 8. And
again :
A dirty heef-hone, even with all the meat gone from it and
nothing left but tiny remnants of sinew and fat, delights the
dog who gets it; and yet it suffices not to still the pangs of
his hunger. The lion lets go the jackal that has come within
his very grasp, and strikes down an elephant. Every one, even
in time of dire straits, craves benefits that are suited to his
spirit. 9,
When one tosses a morsel to a dog, he wags his tail, rolls
at the feet [of the giver], falls on the ground and turns up
his face and his belly towards him. But a noble elephant
preserves a serious mien and eats only after endless coaxing. 10.
Only that man eats well in this world who eats what he has
earned by skill or prowess. A mere dog, even, can get a morsel
of food by wagging his tail. 11.
Real life in this world, the wise say, is only that which is
lived, perchance only for a brief season, yet known to fame
among men, and not lacking in wisdom, prowess, or glory. A
verv crow lives a long time and devours the food that is thrown
to it. 12.
A small rivulet is easily filled; easily filled are a mouse’s paws.
Easily contented is a contemptible man; a mere trifle contents
him, 13.
His mind is void of discernment between good and evil; he
takes no part in the many observances prescribed in the Sacred
Word; he has no desire but the mere filling of his belly; — what
difference is there between a beast and a beast-of-a-man? 14.
(The noble ox draws heavy wagons, and eats grass [rather
than meat]; over hard and easy spots alike he draws the plow;
he is a benefit to the world, and his origin is pure; these are
his distinctions over the beast-in-human-form.” 15.)
(36) Karataka said: “But you see we are not in office; (so)
what have we to do with this business?” (37) Said the other:
“(My friend,) how little time is needed for one who is not in
office to come into office! (And it is said:)
’Tis not by the power of any [patron] that one is rated as
noble or base in this world. Naught but what he does himself
Frame Story: Lion and Bull
279
brings a man to distinction in this world, or to the opposite
condition. 16.
As a stone is brought to the top of a hill with great labor,
but is rolled down with ease, so it is with the soul in regard
to good qualities and faults. 17.
(38) Therefore, my friend, be assured that erery one is depen-
dent on his own self.” (39) Karataka said: ‘^Then what do you
intend to do (in this matter)?” (40) Said he: ^‘It is OYident that
this our lord (Pingalaka) is a coward, and his followers too, and
that he is dull of wit.” (41) Said the other: ^^How do you know^
Sir?” Damanaka replied: ^‘’Tis easy to know that It is said:
A mere beast understands words that are spoken; horses and
elephants move in response to the whip. The wise man divines
even what is not exprest; for the fruit of intelligence lies in
understanding the mien of others. 18.
(42) Accordingly I shall (catch him in his state of fright
and) bring him under my control this very day^ by the power
of my wit,” (43) Karataka said: My friend, you are ignorant
of the laws of [royal] service; (so) how will you bring him
under your control?” (44) Damanaka replied: ^‘My friend, how
[can you say that] I am ignorant of [royal] service? Surely I
am skilled in all the principles of courtiership. And it is said :
What burden is too heavy for the strong? What is distance
to the resolute? What land is foreign to the learned? Who is
an enemy to them that speak kindly?” 19.
(45) Karataka said: “ Perchance our lord may contemn you
for entering his presence at an untimely moment.” (46) Said
the other: “True; but nevertheless (a courtier dare not fail to
approach [his lord]. And it is said) :
A king favors only the man that is near him, tho he be
ignorant, of base extraction, and a stranger. Kings, women, and
creeping vines as a rule embrace whatever is beside them, 20.
Servants who are close to the king can discern the causes
of his displeasure and his grace, and so gradually gain the
ascendancy over him^ even tho he resist them.”^ 2L
(47) Karataka said: “ Then what will you say, Sir^, when you
arrive in his presence? ” Damanaka said:
’ The last clause contains a word-play: “gradmlly dimb him [as a tree],
even tho he shake [in the wind}.”
280
Book I: Separation of Friends
Response will spring from response, and from that response
another speech; just as another seed grows out of a seed upon
wliich plenteous rain has bestowed its blessing. 22, (And again:)
The disaster that follows from the application of bad plans,
and the success that follows from the application of good plans,
are connected with the principles of polity, and shine forth in ad-
vance, so to speak, so that the intelligent can point them out, 23.
(48) And I shall not speak out of season.
If Brhaspati^ himself should speak an untimely word, his
intelligence would be despised and he would meet only with
contempt. 24,
One who speaks aright never says his say at an unsuitable
place or time, nor before one of immature faculties or without
excellence. This is why his words are not spoken in vain. 25.
And again:
A good quality by which one gains his livelihood, and for
which he is praised in public by the good, — such a quality
should be tended and increast by him who possesses it.” 26.
(49) Karataka said: ^*But it is hard to win the favor of kings.
They are like mountains; for they are always harsh [punningly,
of mountains, rugged] by nature, and surrounded by vicious men
[crowded with beasts of prey], (and they are on the lookout for
faults [they are explored thru clefts],) and they make use of
fraud [they harbor treacherous monsters?]. (Because:)
(Kings are like snakes, in that they are luxurious [punningly:
they have coils], and are covered with armor [snake-skins];
they are savage, and act [move] crookedly; they possess nostrils
[hoods, of serpents], and can be managed by good counsel [by
snake-charms].” 27.)
(50) Said the other: ^‘This is true. Nevertheless:
If men are only shrewd enuf, they may even serve kings,
eat poison, and dally with women. 28. (And again:)
Whatever the native disposition of any man may be, the wise
man, by making use of it, can force an entrance and quickly
get him into his power.” 29.
(51) Karataka said: ‘^Good luck go with you; do what you
think best.” (52) (Thereupon) Damanaka (took leave of him
and cautiously) approacht Piogalaka. (53) Then Pingalaka saw
^ Preceptor of tlie gods, and god of wisdom.
Frame Story: Lion and Bull
281
Damanaka coming (while yet afar off) and said to his door-
keepers: ‘‘Lay aside your staves of office (without delay). This
is Damanaka, our hereditary minister of long standing who
is coming); he has the right of entering freely (since he belongs
to the Second Circle).” (54) Then Damanaka aj)proacht and
bowed and took his seat (in a place assigned him by Pingalaka).
(55) And the latter (laid upon him his right hand, adorned
with claws like thunderbolts,® and) said courteously: (56)
(Peace be with you.) It is long since I have seen you. (Why
is this?) ” (57) Damanaka said: “Your Majesty has had no need
of my services. And yet, when the time comes, it is not
permissible (for ministers) to refrain from speaking. (That is
why I have come.) (58) Because there is no one whom kings
cannot use in some way or other. And it is said:
. To pick their teeth, 0 king, or else to scratch their ears,
princes may make use of a blade of grass; how much more
of a man, who has a voice and hands! 30. And again:
The quality of fortitude cannot be destroyed in a man whose
nature contains it, even tho he be used despitefully. Tho a light
be turned downwards, its flames never by any chance go down. 31.
If a serpent, colored like the [dark-blue] cuckoo, or like the
eyes on a peacock’s tail, or like eye-pigment, be trodden upon
with the sole of the foot at an inopportune time; and if it fail
to show its viciousness, having some reason in mind; is it safe
to believe that it has lost its venom? 32.
(Therefore, 0 king:)
Be ever discriminating in regard to your kingdom and your
people; for success depends solely on recognition of the
differences between men. 33.
(And this is well said:)
The husbandman may mix all the seeds together and sow
them; (but) he must judge the goodness of the seeds by the
sprouts, when they have sprung up. 34,
(59) Therefore the king must (at all times) be dis-
criminating. And so:
Servants and ornaments are to be used only in their proper
places. For a man does not fasten a crest-gem on his foot,
simply because he has the power to do so, 35.
^ Or, “hatcliets.”
282
Book I; Separation of Friends
If a gem worthy to be encased in an ornament of gold be
.set in tin, it makes no complaint and does not cease to be
resplendent; [but] blame falls on him who uses it so. 36.
If a king knows how to distinguish between his servants,
saying ‘This one is wise, this one faithful, this one both, that
one foolish’ — he gets an abundance of servants. 37.
If he is levelled with his inferiors; if he fails of the respect
shown his equals; and if he is unworthily employed; — for these
three reasons a servant may desert his patron. 38.
(60) Moreover, we are Your Majesty’s hereditary servants;
even in adversity we follow yon (, for we have no other
recourse; this is a saying that applies to ministers. And it is
said):
What noble man would stay for a single moment where no
distinction is made between right-hand and left-hand, — if he
had any other place to go? 39.
(When a lord makes no distinctions but behaves in the same
way to [all] his servants, then even the vigorous ones lose their
energy. 40.)
The difference between [different] horses, elephants, and
metals, between woods, stones, and garments, between women,
men, and waters, is a great difference. 41.
(Now it is said, in a proverb about distinctions:)
Surely the fool who aspires to carry a thousand hharas'^^ of
stone on his shoulders must become weary or die, even as he
carries the load. 42.
[But] when a discriminating man gets a ruby, which is only
as large as the thick of the thumb, it is easy for him to carry;
and can he not make great profit therefrom? 43.
(61) (Therefore differences of character among servants arise
simply from the qualities of their lords. And how so?)
A horse, arms, scientific knowledge, a lute, speech, a man
and a woman are either useless or useful according to
differences in the men to whom they belong. 44.
(62) And if you should hold me in contempt because I am a
jackal, this also would be wrong. For:
Vis^u assumed the form of a boar, tbe great seer [^syaspnga]
had the form of a deer, and the Six-faced [Skanda, god of war]
A certain heavy weight; literally, ** a load.”
Frame Story: Lion and Bull
283
the form of a goat; are they not honored hy the righteous? 45.
(And again:)
This is not an invariably sound principle, that a servant born
in the household and of long standing is always preferable; but
rather he who is a faithful counsellor. 46. (For thus [it is said]:)
Tho a mouse is born in the household, it is to be destroyed,
because it is injurious; while you obtain a cat from strangers
by offering gifts, because it is serviceable. 47.
Just as no wood-work can be done with the castor-oil plant,
or with hhinda or arka plants, or with reeds, tho one collect
great quantities of them, so there is no way of using fools. 48.
What is the use of one who is faithful but incompetent?
What is the use of one who is competent but injurious? Both
faithful and competent am I, 0 King; know me for what I am,
49. And again:
If a king is without understanding, it follows that he has
unintelligent men in his retinue. Then, because of their
dominance, no wise man will appear in his train. Since the
kingdom is bereft of wise men, its statesmanship is ineffective.
And with the loss of statesmanship, the whole tribe goes to
certain ruin and the king along with it.” 50.
(63) Pingalaka said: Friend (Damanaka), speak not thus;
you are our hereditary minister (of long standing),” (64)
Damanaka said: ''^Sire, I have something to say to you.” (65)
Said he: Say what you wish.” Damanaka said : (66) My lord
started out to get a drink; (then) why has he stopt (here and
turned back without drinking of the water, as if startled by
something)?” (67) Pisgalaka, to conceal what was in his mind,
said: (Damanaka,) there is no special reason.” (68) Said he:
Sire, if it is something that may not be told, then let it be.”
(69) (Then) when Pisgalaka heard this, he reflected: “^(He has
seen thru me, and it appears that) he is a proper person; so
(why should I conceal anything from this faithful follower?) I
will tell him what is in my mind.” And he said: (70) Damanaka,
hear this loud noise that comes from afar!” Said he: ^^My lord,
I hear the noise very plainly. What of it? ” PxRgalaka said:)
(71) ^^My friend, I mean to leave this forest, because this
must he some unheard-of being that has come in here, whose
loud (and strange) noise we now hear. And the being must be
284
Book I; Separation of Friends
of a sort corresponding to the noise^ and his prowess must
correspond to his being. Therefore I can certainly not remain
here.” (72) Damanaka said: Can it be that my lord has been
frightened by a mere sound? (That also is wrong. And further:)
A dam is destroyed by water; counsel is likewise destroyed
by not being kept [secret]; friendship is destroyed by back-
biting; a coward may be destroyed by words. 51.
(73) So it is not rigiit for my lord to abandon this forest
that he has possest so long because of a mere sound. (74) For
sounds of many different kinds are heard here, but they are
mere sounds and nothing else, and there is no reason for being
frightened by them. For instance, (we hear sounds) of (thunder
from the clouds, pipes, lutes, drums, tabors, conch-shells, bells,
wagons, doors,) engines, and other things; (and) there is no need
to be afraid of them. And it is said:
At first indeed I thot: ‘ Surely this is full of fat.’ But when I got
into itj I discovered that it was [nothing but] skin and wood.” 52.
(75) Pingalaka said: ^^How was that?” Damanaka said;
STORY 2: JACKAL AND DRUM
(76) Once upon a time there was a jackal whose throat was
lean with hunger, and who was wandering (about hither and
yon in the forest in search of food), when he saw a battle-
ground of two armies. (77) And there he heard a loud noise.
(78) His heart was smitten with alarm at this, and he thot;
‘‘(What can this be?) I am lost! (Whence comes this noise?
And what sort of creature makes it, and where is he?)” (79)
(Thereupon,) when he made search for it, he found a drum, in
form like a mountain-peak. (80) And seeing it he reflected:
‘‘ Can this noise be made by that thing of itself, or does some-
thing else make it?” (81) Now as the drum was toucht by the
tips of (the branches of) a tree waving in the wind, it made a
noise (, while otherwise it was still). (82) Bnt he went np close
to it to find out what it amounted to, (83) (and himself struck
it on both its faces to see what would happen,) (84) and he
thot; ^‘(Hal At last) I have found in this thing a fine meal!
(Surely it must he crammed full of quantities of meat and fat
The Sanskrit word translated being ” contains a kind of word-play;
it means both “ creature ” and ** nature,” also “ courage.”
Story 2; Jackal and Drum. — Frame Story: Lion and Bull 285
and blood!)” (85) Then he tore open the face of the drum
and crawled in. (And the skin was so hard that he almost
broke his teeth.) (86) But he found not a thing in it. (87) And
turning back he (laught to himself and) said: ^'At first indeed
I thot/’ &c.
(End of Story 2)
(88) “Therefore (I say:) You should not be afraid of a mere
noise. (89) (However,) if you think best, I will go where that
noise comes from and find out all about it.” (90) Pisgalaka
said: “Do you really dare go up to it?” “Most certainly,”
said he. Pifigalaka said: “(My friend, in that case) go (, and
good luck go with you).” (91) Damanaka (bowed to him and)
started out in the direction of the noise (made by Samjlvaka).
(92) Now when Damanaka was gone, Piflgalaka’s heart was
smitten with feai*, and he thot: “Look, I have not done well
in putting confidence in this fellow and telling him what was
in my mind. (93) (Perchance this Damanaka may be disaffected
towards me and may try double-dealing.) (94) And it is said:
Those who have been honored and are then dishonored, those
who have been rejected, the resentful, the greedy, the ruined,
and those who have volunteered their services, (these one can
ward off by guile. [But]) those who are very poor and opprest
by taxation, those who have been first invited and then driven
away, those who have been slighted in regard to a work of art
or decoration tho they have done equally good work [with
others who were not slighted], those who have been mortified
by exile, who have been put in the shade by their equals, from
whom honors have been withdrawn, also those who have been
given too many things to do, and aspirants [for the throne]
from the same family; these do not yield their rights^® even
in constant association,^^ and must be tested in every possible
way. Now this [Damanaka] may perchance conceive that honors
have been withdrawn from him, in which case he may be dis-
affected towards me. Or else, because he is powerless himself,
The passag'e which follows is an inexact quotation from the Mufillya
Artha^Sstra, attributed to OSijakya; see page 271, note 1, and page 274, note 2,
Or, “ depart from their nature.”
Or, possibly, “at the time of a clash?”
286
Book I: Separation of Friends
he might cleave unto the stronger and be neutral towards me.
(In that case too I should surely he ruined.) (95) So I will
(certainly) go (from this spot) to another place, until I find out
what he intends to do/’ Thus reflecting he moved to another
place and remained there (quite alone), looking along the road
(which Damanaka had taken). (96) But Damanaka went to
where Saihjivaka was. And when he saw that it was [only] a
bull^ he (was delighted and) went back towards Pifigalaka. (97)
But Pisgalaka returned to his former position, to conceal the
expression of his countenance, thinking: “Otherwise this
Damanaka will think that I am a coward and my followers
too.” (98) And when Damanaka arrived in the presence of
Pingalaka, he bowed to him and sat down. (99) PiDgalaka
said: ^^Well, Sir, have you seen that creature?” Damanaka
replied: have (by Your Majesty’s grace).” (100) PiQgalaka
said: “Have you seen him as he really is?” Damanaka said:
“Yes.” (101) Said he: “You have not seen him as he really
is; for you are a person of no high station, and since you are
powerless he would not oppose you. Since:
The hurricane does not uprdot grasses, which are pliant and
bow low before it on every side. It is only the lofty trees that
it attacks. A mighty man exerts his prowess only against the
mighty. 53. (And again:)
Tho the rutting elephant is assailed upon his temples by the
feet of the bees as they roam about mad with longing for the
rut-fluid,^® he does not wax angry at them, in spite of his
excessive might. The powerful show anger only against their
equals in power,” 54.
(102) Damanaka said: “(Why, I knew in advance that my
lord would say this.) Now, to make a long story short, 1 will
bring him in person into Your Majesty’s presence (here).” (103)
(And hearing tliis) PiDgalaka was delighted and said: “Do so
at once.” (104) (But) Damanaka went back and spoke insultingly
to Samjivaka: (105) “Come here, come here, wretch (of a bull)!
The Lord Pingalaka says to you: * Why do you make bold to
keep bellowing constantly for no reason?’ ” (106) (Hearing this)
Hindu poetry ia fall of references to the alleged fact that bees swarm
eagerly to taste a fluid which is said to exude from the temples of rutting
elephants.
Frame Story: Lion and Bull
287
Saiiijivaka said: Friend, who is this person Piligalaka (that
sends this message to me)?” (107) (Then) Damanaka (langht
in amazement and) said (to him): (108) “What! Can it be that
yon do not even know the Lord Pingalaka? (You will know
him by his fruits!” he added ironically.) “Why, the Lord
PiSgalaka is that (mighty lion, the) king of the beasts, who
stands attended by all the beasts (near the Fig-tree of the
Circles, his soul exalted in grandeur).” (109) When Saiiijivaka
heard this, he thot he was as good as dead, and was plunged
in deepest despair; and he said: (110) “ If I really must come,
then let me be granted the boon of a safe-conduct.” (Ill)
(“Very well,” agreed) Damanaka (, and he) returned to the
lion and reported the matter to him and got his consent; and
he conducted Saiiijivaka into Pingalaka^s presence (as agreed).
(112) (And Saiiijivaka saluted him respectfully and stood modestly
before him.) (113) And he laid upon him his right hand, (plump,
round, and long, and adorned with claws like thunderbolts^^*
in place of ornaments,) and said courteously: (114) “(Peace be
with you.) Whence have you come into this uninhabited forest? ”
(115) (In reply to this question) Saiiijivaka told all that had
happened to him before (, how he had been separated from
the merchant Vardhamanaka), (116) (And) hearing this Pifigalaka
said: “Friend, fear not; dwell at your pleasure in this wood
which is protected by my arm, (Moreover, you liad best remain
constantly near me, because this wood is full of dangers, since
it is crowded with all manner of ferocious beasts.” Saiiijivaka
replied: “As Your Majesty commands.”) (117) (When he had
spoken thus, Piflgalaka, attended by all the beasts, went down
to the bank of the Jumna and drank his fill of water, and
returned again to his royal residence in that same wood, roaming
about undisturbed.) (118) Thenceforth (those two,) Piogalaka
and Saiiijivaka past the time (day by day) in mutually affectionate
intercourse. (119) And since Saiiijivaka had applied his mind
to the subjects of many sciences, (in a very short time) he
taught Pingalaka wisdom, altho Pingalaka had previously been
ignorant (because he was a forest-dweller), (120) (In short,
every day) Pingalaka and Saiiijivaka conferred alone on secret
matters with one another, and all the rest of the beasts were
Or, liatchetH/’
288
Book I: Separation of Friends
kept at a distance. (121) And thei^e was a dearth of food
(resulting* from the killings of the lion’s prowess), so that (even)
Karataka and Damanaka (were ravenous with hunger; and
they) took counsel with one another. (122) Then Damanaka
said: (Friend) Karataka, {we are ruined. Now what can we do
in these circumstances ?) I myself was responsible for this trouble,
in that I brought Saihjivaka to Pingalaka. And it is said:
The jackal by the rams’ fight, and I by Asa(Jhabhuti, and
the procuress by the weaver: — [these] three afflictions were
self-caused.” (55)
(123) Karataka said: ‘‘How was that?” Said he:
STORY 3a: MONK AND SWINDLER
(124) In a certain region there was a monk named Devasarman.
(125) In the course of time he had gained a large fortune thru
the acquisition of fine garments of excellence, which various
pious people had presented to him. (126) (And he trusted no
one.) (127) Now (once upon a time) a thief named Asadhabhuti
(observed this money, which he carried in his waist-pocket, and)
meditated: ‘‘How can I steal this money from him?” And he
presented himself to the monk as a pupil, and in time won his
confidence. (128) (Now) once upon a time that monk started
on a journey with this same Asadbabhuti, to make a pilgrimage
to holy places. (129) And in the course of the journey in a
certain wooded region he left A§adhabhuti with the money (near
the bank of a river) and went aside to get water.
STORY 3b: RAMS AND JACKAL
(130) (And there by the edge of the water) he saw a (great)
fight of rams. (131) And as they fought with all their strength
and without rest, a great quantity of blood flowed from between
their branching horns and fell upon the ground, A (certain
foolish) jackal saw this, and (his mind was aroused by the hope
[of eating it], and in his eagerness for meat) he ran up between
the two rams (as they separated leaving some distance between
them), to get at the blood. And when they came together
(again) he was killed by the shock of their impact. (132) Then
the monk was filled with amazement, and said: ^‘The jackal
by the rams’ fight.”
(End of Story Sn)
story 3a : Monk and Swindler.— Story 3 c: Cuckold Weaver and Bawd 289
(133) And (having jrarified himself) he returned to that place;
but as for Asadhabhuti, (he had taken the whole pile of money
and run away, and) Devasarman could not find him. (134)
(But all he saw was a discarded triple staff, [fire-]Mmod, a
water-vessel, a sieve, and a [tooth-] brush.) (136) (And he
reflected: Where is that Asadhahhuti? He must have robbed
me.” And in great distress) he said: "And I by Asadhahhuti.”
(End of Story 8 a)
STORY 3c: CUCKOLD WEAVER AND BAWD
(136) Then that monk (, Iiaving nothing left hut his half-skull
[used as drinking-vessel] and the [empty] knot in his robe [in
which he had carried the money], went off searching for the
rogue’s tracks, and) as the sun was setting entered a certain
village. (137) (As he entered) he met a weaver (who lived in
the edge of the village) and askt of him a lodging for the
night. (138) And he showed him to qnartei'S in a part of his
house, and said to his wife: ‘‘While I (am gone to town and)
am drinking liquor with my friends, until I return, do you
carefully tend the house.” After thus instructing her he departed.
(139) (Now) his wife was unchaste. And when a procuress
came and prest her to go, she (donned her adornments and)
started out to go to her lover. (140) Just then her husband
came home and met her, his garments awry, with staggering
gait, and so badly under the influence of liquor that he could
not speak his words plainly. (141) And when she saw him,
(with presence of mind) she (deftly took off her adornments
and) put on her ordinary garh as before, and began to wash
tlie feet [of the guest], (prepare his bed,) and the like. (142)
But the weaver entered the house and began to scold her:
“Harlot! My friends have been telling me of your evil actions.
All right! I will pay you back richly!” So saying he heat her
with blows of a stick until she was black and blue, and tied
her fast with a rope to the post (in the middle [of the house]),
and then went to sleep. (143) At this time the procuress, a
All these are implements carried by the brahman-pupil; the swindler
had assumed them to trick the monk, and after accomplishing his purpose
had discarded them.
Bdgerton, Paiicatantra. II.
19
290
Book Is Separation of Friends
barber’s wife, (when she perceived that the weaver was asleep,)
came in again and said : That (fine) fellow is consumed witli
the fire of longing for you, so that he is like to die. (144) So
I will' release you and bind myself in your place; do you (go
thither and) console him ( — you know whom — ) and come back
quickly.” So the barber’s wife releast her from her bonds and
sent her off to her lover. (145) After this the weaver awoke,
sobered, and began to scold her in the same way as before.
(146) But the procuress was frightened, and did not dare speak
with her strange voice [lest she be recognized], and she held
her peace. (147) He however kept on saying the same things
to her. And when she gave him no answer, at last he cried
out angrily: “Are you so proud that you will not so much as
answer what I say? ” and he arose and cut off her nose witli
a sharp knife, and said: “ Have that for your decoration ! Who
will be interested in you now? ” (148) So saying he went to
sleep again. (149) Then the weaver’s wife returned and askt
the procuress: What news (with you)? (What did he say when
he woke up? Tell me, tell me!)” (150) (But) the procuress
(, who had received the punishment, showed her her nose, and)
said in an ill humor: “You can see what the news is! Let me
loose and I will go.” (151) She did so, and she departed, taking
her nose with her. (152) The weaver’s wife (however) arranged
herself as she had been before, with a semblance of bonds.
(163) But the weaver awoke and began to scold her in the
same way as before. (154) Then she said to him angrily and
reproachfully: “Fie, wicked man! Who could dare to disfigure
me, a pure and faithful wife? (165) Hear (me), ye Rulers of
tlie World-regions!^® As surely as I. know (even in my thots)
no strange man, no one other than tlie husband of my youth,
by this truth let my face be undisfigured!” (Having spoken
thus she said to her husband again:) “0 most wicked man!
Behold my face! (It has become just as it was before!)” (156)
Then that (stupid) man’s mind was bewildered by her tricky
words. He lighted a lamp, and beheld his wife with her face
undisfigured. (157) His eyes bulged; (his heart was filled with
joy, and kissing her) he releast her (from her bonds, and fell
“LokapSlasy epithet of four (or eight) chief gods as guardians of the
cardinal (and semi-cardinal) points of the compass.
Story 3c: Cuckold Weaver and Bawd. - Frame Story: Lion and Bull 291
at her and embraced her passionately and carried her to
the bed. (168) But the monk remained on the spot, having
seen the whole occurrence (from the very beginning).
(159) (And) that procuress, with her nose in her liands, went
home, thinking: “(What can I do now?) How can I conceal
this (great disaster)?’' (160) Now her husband, the barber,
came back home at dawn from another place, and said to his
wife: (161) “Bring me my razor-case, (my dear;) I have to go
to work in the king’s palace.” (162) And she did not move
from the inside of the house, but threw out to him a razor
only. (163) And because she did not hand him the whole razor-
case; the barber’s heart was filled with wrath, and he threw
that same razor at her. (164) Then she raised a (loud) cry of
anguish; and rubbed her nostrils (with her hand); and threw
her nose (dripping with blood) on the ground, and said: (165)
^^Help! Help! This (wicked) man has mutilated me, tho he has
found no fault in me!” (166) Then the policemen came, and
saw that she was obviousty mutilated, (167) and beat tho barber
soundly with blows of their sticks, and (afterwards) bound him
(firmly) and took him (along with her) to the seat of judgment.
(168) And the judges askt him: “Why did you maltreat your
wife thus (cruelh^)? ” And (when, in spite of repeated ([uestioning,)
he made no reply; (169) then the judges ordered that he be
impaled upon a stake. (170) Now as he was being taken to
the place of execution, the monk, who had observed the whole
course of events, saw him, and went to the court and said to
the judges: (171) “This barber is innocent of wrong-doing ; do
not have him impaled. (For) hear (these) three marvels!
The jackal by the rams’ fight, and I by AaH^iabhliti; and
the procuress by the weaver: — [tliese] three afflictions were
self-caused.” 56,
(172) And when the judges had learned the true facts of the
case, tliey spared the barber.
(End of Story 8 c and of tlie entire third story)
(173) Therefore I say: “The jackal by the rams’ fight”
(174) Karataka said: “Then what action do you think would
suit the present case?” (175) Damanaka said: “(Friend, even)
292
Book I: Separation of Friends
in a case like tliis the wise have, after all, the power of saving-
themselves. (And it is said :)
Counsel that is directed to reviving a lost cause, to gaining
a future advantage, or to preventing a losing course of action —
that is the highest counsel. 57.
(176) Now this Piiigalaka is in a state of (serious) evil. (There-
fore) he must be detacht from this (Samjivaka). (Because;)
When a king is so deluded as to become attacht to evil,
surely his servants must use every effort to save him from it,
by tbe means described in [political] science.” 58.
(177) Karataka said: ‘^In what evil is our lord Pingalaka?
(178) For there are seven evils (that pei'tain to kings) in this
world. (Namely:)
Women, dice, hunting, drinking, and harshness of speech
for the fifth, and serious harshness in punishments, and likewise
violence to [the] property [of others].” 59.
(179) Damanaka said: ^^(My friend,) this is just one evil,
named Vice (; it has seven forms).” (180) Karataka said: ^^How
is this just one evil?” (181) Damanaka replied: '‘(You must
know that) there are (in this world) five basic evils, namely:
Deficiency, Tumulty Vice, Affliction, and Bad Policy,” (182)
(Karataka said: '^What is the distinction between them?”
Damanaka said:) (183) "(Now first among them the evil known
as) Defi.ciency is to be defined as occurring when there is a
deficiency of even a single one of the following: ruler, minister,
nation, stronghold, treasury, army, or ally. (184) (But) when
the internal elements or the external elements are in a state
of agitation [against the king], (either one at a time or all at
once,) that evil is (to be known as) Tumult. (185) Vice has
What follows, thra § 188, is a technical disquisition on political science,
based on the same material that is found in the first part of the eighth
hook of tbe KSutiliya Artha^Sstra, attributed to OS^akya.
Hertel takes the “elements” fpraJcrti) to refer to the list just mentioned
in § 383 (ruler, minister, &c.). These are, however, with the possible exception
of the “ally,” only the “internal” elements (of the state). Besides these
there are the “external” elements, namely the corresponding elements of
the hostile, “middling” (madhyama) and “neutral” (udaalna) states, and of
the ally (mitra) and “ally’s ally” of each of these, making a total of seventy-
two political elements or pi^akrHs. This is set forth in the KlEutiliya Artha^astra,
Book 6, Chapter :2 (Ist ed,, page 259), That the hostile state is included
Frame Story: Lioii and Bull
203
l)een already explained al)ove (in the verse ‘ women, dice, hunting,*
&c.). Of these ‘women, dice, hunting, and drinking’ constitute the
group [of vices] that are due to pleasure^ while ‘harshness of
speech ’ and the rest constitute the group that are due to wrath.
One who is freed from those that are due to pleasure may become
entangled in those that are due to wrath. The group of those due
to pleasure is very easy to comprehend. (186) But I shall [now]
define the three varieties that are due to wrath. If one is inclined
to hate others and is given to reciting their (failings and)
faults (heedlessly), that is harshness of speech. The merciless
application of the penalties of death, imprisonment, and
mutilation, (when they are not called for,) is harshness in
punishments. Relentless grasping after [the] possessions [of
others] is violence to property. Such is the seven-fold evil of
Vice. (187) Affliction (however) is eightfold: it comes from
accident [‘fate’], fire, water, disease, pestilence, cholera, famine,
or fiendish rain. Excessive rain (or lack of rain [?]) is what is
called fiendish rain. So this is what is to he understood by
(the evil of) Affliction. (188) (Now I shall explain) Bad Policy.
When there is en^oneous application of the six forms of policy,
that is, peace, war, ’march, waiting policy, alliance with a
powerful helper, and double dealing; wlien one makes war at
a time appropriate to peace, or peace at the time for wmr, or
when in like manner he runs counter to any other of the six
forms of policy: (then) that is (to be understood as) the evil
of Bad Policy. (189) Therefore this Piligalaka must by all means
be detacht from Samjivaka. (For if there is no lamp, there
can be no light.) ” (190) Karataka said: “You have no power;
(so) how will you separate them?” (191) Damanaka replied:
“(Friend, I must devise a trick. And it is said:)
By guile, verily, can he done what cannot be done by
violence. The female crow by a gold chain compast the death
of the cobra.” 60.
(192) Karataka said: “(And) how was that?” Said he:
among the “elements" is likewise indicated strikingly in the work named,
Book 7, Chapter 7, opening sentence (1st ed., page 281), where the enemy
is called the “second element" (dvt^y^ pi^akrti)^ 1 find in the work named
no use of the terms “internal" and “external" elements; but it seems elear
that the distinction must he that which I have indicated.
294
Book I: Separation of Friends
STORY 4: CROWS AND SPJRl^ENT
(193) Once upon a time in a certain locality there was a tree, '
in which dwelt a pair of crows. (194) But when they brought
forth young, a cobra was in the habit of crawling up the hollow
trunk of the tree and eating the young crows (before they
learned to fly). (195) Then they, in despair, askt a close friend
of theirs, a jackal who lived at the foot (of another tree): B
(196) “Friend, what, think you, would it be well for us to do >:■;
in such a case? (Since your young are murdered, it is the
same as if we, their parents, were slain.)” Said he: “Do not
despair in this matter. Only by craft can that (greedy) creature ;}
surely be destroyed.
After eating many fish, best, worst, and middling, a heron grew |
too greedy and so at last met his death by seizing a crab.” 61.
(197) The crows said: “(And) how was that?” Said he: j
STORY 5: HERON AND CRAB I
(198) In a certain region there was a lake that was full of
all kinds of fish. And a certain heron made his home there,
who had come to old age and was unable to kill fish. (199)
So he went to the edge of the lake and made himself appear
dejected, and waited. (200) There was a crab there, (who was
surrounded by many fish;) and he said: (201) “(Uncle,) why
are you not trying to get food today (as you used to)?” (202) 1
The heron said: “I am an eater of fish (; so I will speak to 2
you without guile). Heretofore I have sustained my life by
getting hold of you. (At present, my means of livelihood is I
this day destroyed; that is why I am downcast.)” (203) (Said "i
he: “Uncle, how is that?” The heron said:) (204) “Today
some fishermen past near this lake and said: (205) ‘This lake |
has plenty of fish; we will throw the net into it tomorrow.’ |
Then one of them said: ‘There are other lakes near the town f
which we have not yet visited; we will visit them and then 'i
come back here.’ (206) So, my friend, you are all as good as
done for, and I (also) am ruined, because my source of liveli-
hood will he cut oft. And that is why (1 am so grieved that)
I am abstaining from food (today),” (207) Then the crab told ;i|
this to the fish. Thereupon all the fish came together and iS
story 4: Crows and Sorpont.— Story 6: Heron and Crab
295
said (to the lieron): (208) ^^From tlie very source whence
clanger is traditionally said to come, a means of escape may
(also) come. So he so good as to save us!*’ (209) The heron
said: “I (am a bird and) cannot cope with men. However, I
will convey yon (one at a time) from this lake to another pond,
that is not shallow.” (210) Thereupon (because they were so
frightened) they trusted in him and said to him: ‘^(Little
father! Brother! Uncle!) Take me! Me first!” (211) So that
villain took the fish one after another and threw them down
on a flat rock not far away, and ate them one at a time,
and enjoyed himself vastly. (212) But the crab was in deadly
fear of losing his life, and (repeatedly) implored him: (213)
“(Uncle, pray) be good enuf to save me too (from the jaws
of death).” (214) But that (wretched) creature thot: “(I am
tired of this monotonous fish-meat;) I will taste the delicious
meat of this [crab], which I have never had before.” (215)
Then he pickt up the crab and flew thru the air, (not going
near a single pool of water,) until he was about to throw him
down on that rock (on which he did the killing); (216) when
the crab caught sight of the pile of bones of the fish that had
been eaten already. And at that he thot: (217) “This villain
has (trickt and) eaten the fish. (So what would be a timely
thing to do now?) At any rate:
When a wise man is attack! and sees no escape for him-
self, then he dies fighting along with his foe.” 62.
(218) So the foolish heron, who knew nothing about the
grip of the crab^s pincers, got his head cut off by the crab.
(219) But tlxe crab (took the heron’s neck, like a lotus-stem,
and) very slowly crawled back to that same lake (where ^ the
fish were). (220) And they said to him: “(Brother,) where is
our uncle yonder?” (221) Then he said: “He is dead. (Here
is the villain’s head.) By his trickery he ate many of your
companions; but he met his death thru me.”
(End of Story 5)
(222) Therefore I say: “After eating many fish” &c. (223)
(Then) the male crow said to the jackal: “What do you think
it timely (for us) to do?” (224) Said he: “Get a gold chain
that belongs to some rich man, (a king or minister or the like,)
296
Book I: Separation of FriendB
and put it in the snake’s hole. (225) The people who come to
get it will kill the snake.” (226) (So speaking the jackal
departed.) (227) Then the two crows (, hearing this,) flew up
(and soared about at random looking for a g'old chain). (228)
And soon the female crow came to a certain lake, and when
she looktj she saw that the members of a king’s harem were
playing in the water of the lake, having laid aside near the
water their gold chains, pearl necklaces, garments, and other
finery. (229) Then the female crow pickt up a gold chain and
set out thru the air towards her own home, but slowly, so as
not to get out of sight. (230) Thereupon when the chamberlains
(and eunuchs) perceived the theft of the chain, they (took their
sticks and quickly) pursued. But the female crow deposited
the gold chain in the snake’s hole, and waited a long way off.
(231) Now when the king’s officers climbed the tree, (in the
trunk) they found the cobra (with his hood expanded). (232)
And they killed him (with blows of their sticks). (233) (When
they had done this they took the gold chain and departed,
going where they would. But the pair of crows from that time
forth dwelt in peace.)
(End of Story 4)
(234) Therefore I say: ‘'By guile, verily, can be done” &c.
(235) "(So there is nothing in this world which clever people
cannot accomplish.) And it is said:
Whosoever has wit, has power; but as for the foolish, how
can he be powerful? Behold how the lion Haughty was destroyed
by the hare!” 63.
(236) Karataka said: “How was that?” Said he:
*
STORY 6: LION AND HARE
(237) In a certain forest-region there was a lion named
Haughty. (238) (And) he kept up a continuous slaughter of
the beasts. (239) Then all the beasts came together and humbly
addrest the king of beasts: (240) “ Sire, what profit is there in
this (pitiless and) purposeless slaughtering of all the beasts (,
which endangers your lordship’s prospects in the next world)?
(241) It is evident that we are utterly undone [by it], and you
also will fail of sustenance, so that it is fatal to both parties.
Story4: (Vuws and Serpent.- Story 0: Lion and Hare -1)7
(242) (So grant us this favor.) We ourselves will send to your
lordship for your food one wild creature every day (, from
each tribe ill turn).” (243) The lion said: “Agreed.” From that
time on they sent him a single beast each day, and he con-
tinually ate the same. (244) Now once upon a time (as the lot
past from tribe to tribe) it came the turn of a hare. (245) {But)
he, when all the beasts sent him forth, reflected: (246) “This
means the end of me; I am entering the jaws of death. What
now would be a timely thing for me to do? (247) Yet after
all, is anything impossible for the clever? (So) I will kill the
lion by craft.” (248) Thereupon he proceeded very slowly, so
that he arrived too late (for dinner-time). (249) But the lion,
his throat lean with hunger, was filled with rage and said (to
hixh furiously): (250) “No matter how angry one is, killing is
the worst thing one can do ! (You are a dead creature this day.
Tell me,) why this delay on your part? ” (251) Then the hare
(bowed and) said courteously: “My lord, it is not my fault.
(252) (As I was coming along) another lion stopt me on the
road and was going to eat me. (And I said: *I am going to
our lord the lion Hauglity, to serve as his dinner.’ Then he
said: ^ That Haughty is a thief. So go and call him and return
quickly, that whichever of us two shall prove himself king by
his prowess may eat all .of these beasts.’) So I have come to
report this to my lord.” (253) Hearing this the lion said angrily:
“ How can there be another lion here (in this wood ruled by
my right arm)! (Go and) show^ me the scoundrel quickly! ” The
hare said: “ (In that case) come, my lord, and I will show him
to you.” (254) (But) he (, the hare,) took him and showed him
a deep well full of clear water, saying: “Look there! (There
he is!)” (255) (Then) that fool (of a lion) saw his own image
in the water, and thot: “This is that rival of mine,” and was
furiously angry. (And he roared his lion’s roar. Thereupon a
roar of redoubled strength came back out of the well, because
of the echo from it. And when the lion heard this roar, he
thot: “ He must be exceedingly strong! ”) And he hurled himself
upon him, and perisht. (256) But the hare; being overjoyed
himself and having brought joy to all the beasts, received their
grateful thanks and dwelt in that wood in peace.
(End of Story 6)
298
Book I; Separation of Krieucls
(257) Therefore I say: “ Whosoever has wit has power &c.
(268) (When he heard this) Karataka said: In that case go,
and good luck go with you, (Do as you think best.) ” (259)
Then Damanaka went up to Piiigalaka and saluted him, and
sat down. (260) He said: “ Whence^^ come you? It is a long
time since I have seen you.” (261) Said he: “ Sire^ I have
come to report a matter which (as I believe) is of immediate
danger. And this is not a pleasant thing for dependants to do;
the fact is that they tell such things only because of the danger
that time [lost by their failure to speak] will bring ruin to
future projects [of their master]. For thus [it is said]:
When wise men who are not even appointed ministers offer
their advice, they form the best soil for the growth of attach-
ment, watered by affection.” 64. *
(262) (Then) Pisgalaka said courteously (to him, because his
words appeared worthy of credence): ^^What do you wish to
say, Sir? ” (263) Said he: Why, it is Just this: this Saiiijivaka
has a mind to harm you. (264) In a moment of confidence he
said in my presence: ^I have now found out just how much
the three-fold power of this Piiigalaka amounts to. Therefore
I intend to kill him and seize the kingdom myself.’ ” (265)
(And) when PiHgalaka heard this (speech, which smote him
with more irresistible force than a thunderbolt), his heart was
stunned; he was completely bewildered, and could say nothing
at all. (266) (But) Damanaka (, observing his expression,) said:
It is clear that this great weakness has come about thru the
dominance of a single minister. And this is well said:
When minister and prince are liaised to too high a position,
Fortune tries to hold them up, fixing her feet firmly; hut since
she is a woman, she cannot support the load, and lets one of
the two fall. 65.
When a king gives one minister absolute power in the king-
dom, the minister is infatuated and grows proud; with the
Or, wherefore.”
HertePs rendering of this last clause seems impossible. TJttara cannot
possibly mean ‘‘Aussage”; here it means the same as minananiara of Pn;
literally, “ by sttbseq[uent-affair-time-ruin-fearing ones.”
A technical term of political science: the three-fold power consists ofjpra-
hhiUm “eminence of position,” “good counsel,” and idsaha “prowess.”
Frame Story: Lion and Hull
29!)
indolence of pride he develops a loathing [for the service];
because of this loathing^ a desire for inde})endence finds a place
in his heart; and then, in his desire for independence, he plots
against the king’s life. 66,
In the case of poisoned food, a loose tooth, or a wicked
minister, the only relief is to get rid of them utterly, 67.
(267) And he (is now quite uncheckt and) holds sway in all
matters at his own sweet will. So what should be done in such
a case? (Moreover:)
Even a wholly devoted minister, if he is managing the affairs
[of state] in a way that injures the [king’s] interests, must not
be let alone by the king. If let alone he ruins him.” 68.
(268) (And hearing this the lion said: “But surely he is such
a servant as I never had! How can he be disaffected towards
me? ”) (269) (Said he: “ Sire, whether he is your servant or not,
no conclusion can be safely inferred from that. And it is said:)
There is no man who does not long for the majesty of kings.
But it is men who are humbled and powerless that wait upon
a prince.” 69.
(270) The lion said: “Friend, nevertheless my heart will not
turn against him. For:
Tho it he disfigured by many defects, to whom is his own
body not dear? Tho he commit crimes, one who is beloved is
beloved still.” 70.
(271) Damanaka said: “That is just the cause of your diffi-
culty, You have set aside all the beasts, (my lord,) and fixt
your regard upon him; and (now) he lusts after the kingship.
Moreover:
If a king shows too much regard for one person, be he his
own son or [another] kinsman, he surely steals from him the
heart of Fortune. 71.
(272) (And if you tlxink his great stature will be useful to
you, this also is a mistake. For:)
(What is the use of an elephant [whose temples are] flowing
[with the rut-fluid], hut who does not do an elephant’s work?
On high ground or low ground, better is one that does his
work, 72.)
(273) (Therefore, Sire, this is no way to succeed.)
** Literally, “from the root’’
300
Book I: Separation of Frieiid.s
If one disreg'ards the advice of the good and clings to the
advice of the wicked, his life cannot be saved; he is like a
sick man who eats everything. 73.
Whosoever does not stay in the control of his friends, which
is the highest wisdom, soon falls from his station and finds
himself in the control of his enemies. 74.
Where one will give, and another will take, advice that is
successful in its issue, tho it he unpleasant to hear — there
Fortune loves to dwell. 75.
One should not honor newcomers to the prejudice of servants
of long standing. There is no more serious malady, destructive
of kingship, than this.^’ 76.
(274) The lion said:
“When one has formerly declared in public that a certain
person has excellent qualities, a man who keeps his word cannot
declare that that person lacks such qualities. 77.
(275) (Moreover^) I gave him safe-conduct and brought him
to myself when he was a suppliant, and nourisht him. So how
can he (be so ungrateful as to) plot against me?” Damanaka
said:
“An evil man returns to his evil nature, tho he be tended
zealously; he is like a dog’s tail that one strives to bend by
means of softening and oiling. 78. (And again:)
A man must say these things uninvited, to one whose injury
he would avoid. This principle alone is characteristic of the
good; others are held to be the reverse [of good]. 79.
(276) (And again: he who said the following:)
(‘A man should try to restrain a kinsman or a friend, a king
or a revered person, who strays from the right path; hut if
[the erring one] cannot be restrained, he may thereafter do
what he pleases.’ 80.)
(277) (He was surely a traitor. On the contrary:)
Well-wishers should restrain their friends who desire to do
wrong and keep them from suffering anguish. For this is
declared by the righteous to be the whole behavior of the good;
any otlier is the behavior of the wicked. 81.
He is truly devoted who holds one back from evil; that is a
true deed which is without sin. She is a true wife who is
obedient; he is truly wise who is approved by the righteous. That
Frame Story: Lion and Bull
301
is true fortune wliicli does not intoxicate; he is truly happy
who is not carried away by desire. He is a true friend who is a
friend without reserve; he is a true man who is not tormented
by the senses. 82.
It were better to pass by a good friend who is asleep with
his head on a bed of fire, or who has made a serpent his couch,
than one who is addicted to vice. 83.
(278) Therefore this vice of (association with) Samjivaka will
bring Your Majesty to loss of the three objects of human
desire.®^ (279) Now if in spite of manifold warnings Your Majesty
(disregards my words and) does as he sees fit, then (if a
disaster occurs) hereafter your servant is not to be blamed.
And it is said:
A king who follows his own desires takes no account of duty
or advantage; he strays after his own lusts uncontrolled, like a
rut-maddened elephant. So when, puft up with pride, he falls into
a pit of grief, then he throws the blame on his servant, and
fails to recognize his own misconduct.” 84.
(280) The lion said: (Friend,) if this is the case should he
not be admonisht?” (281) Damanaka said: “How can you
think of admonishing him? What sort of policy would that be?
An enemy that has been admonisht hastens to plot against
you, or to attack you by force. Therefore it is wise to admonish
an enemy by deeds and not by words.” 85.
(282) The lion said: “But he is after all a grass-eater, and I
am a flesh-eater; so how could he injure me?” (283) Damanaka
said: “That is true; he is a grass-eater and Your Majesty is a
flesh-eater; he is your natural food and you are one that
naturally feeds on him. (284) Nevertheless, even if he does you
no injury himself, he will still cause injury to you thru another.”
(285) (The lion said: “What power has he to injure me eitlier
by himself or thru another?” Said he:) (286) “You know that
your body is always disfigured with wounds caused by the blow^s
of the (claws and) teeth of many furious elephants, (wild oxen,
buffaloes, boars, tigers, and leopards,) in your battles with
them. (But) he (constantly) remains near you and scatters his
dung and urine all about. And in consequence of tliis worms
will be produced. Because your body is near at hand, these
Religion or morality, worldly advantage, and love.
302
Book I: Separation of Friends
worms will make their way into it, following the holes made
by the wounds. And in that way too you will surely he
destroyed. And it is said:
Not to one whose character is unknown should refuge ever
be granted. For Slow-crawl was killed thru the fault of
Stinger/^®® 86.
(287) Pingalaka said: ^^How^ was that? Said he:
STORY 7: LOUSE AND FLEA
(288) A certain king, had (in his palace) an incomparable
couch, perfect in all respects. (289) A louse named Slow-crawl
lived in it (in a part of the coverlet). (290) And she remained
there a long time, eating the king's blood and passing the time
pleasantly. (291) Now (once upon a time) a flea named Stinger,
driven by a breeze, alighted there (on the bed). (292) (And he
found that the bed had a very fine upper coverlet and double
pillows, that it was broad as a Ganges sandbank and very soft
and of fragrant perfume; and he was greatly pleased with it.)
(293) (And as he strayed here and there, enchanted with the
toucli of it,) it happened that he was observed by Slow-crawl.
And she said to him: (294) Wherefore have you come to this
place that is not a proper dwelling for you? Depart from
here!” Said he: (296) “Madam, I have heretofore tasted man}?"
kinds of blood (from [people of all the castes,] brahmans,
ksatriyas, vai^yas, and ^udras. But all this was puckery, slimy,
unsatisfactory, and unpleasant). (296) But he who sleeps in
this bed must (surely) have blood as delightful as nectar. (He
must be free from disease, because the wind, gall, and phlegm
[in his body] are controlled by the constant and zealous
application of herbs and other remedies by physicians. His
blood is enrieht with food containing tliick and delicate juices,
So I render the onomatopoetic name Tii^tibha; but it may be meant
to suggest the sound made by the insect, rather than its actions (Buzzer,
not Stinger). In that case the insect could not have been a flea, as it is
customary to render it in this story, since fleas operate noiselessly; it may
have been something more like our mosquito. The Sanskrit word, matk^a,
is applied to various stinging insects.
According to Hindu medicine these are the three fundamental “humors”
of tlie human body. Variation from the proper proportion of them in the
body causes disease.
story 7: Louse and Flea.— Frame Story; Lion and Bull 303
food that is spicy with candied sugar and treacle, pomegranates
and the three spices [black and long pepper and dried ginger],
and that includes the very finest meat from beasts of the land,
•water, and air. I imagine his blood must be like an elixir of
life.) (297) And by your favor I should like to taste this
(fragrant and nourishing [blood]).” (298) Then that [louse]
(Slow-crawl) said: “That is out of the question for such as
you; your mouth is like fire and you bite savagely. So go
away (from this bed).” (299) Then he fell at her feet and
again made the same entreaty. (300) And she took pity on him
and agreed, saying: “So be it. But you must be careful not to
attack him at the wrong time (or in too sensitive a place).”
(301) (Said he: “What is the proper time for it? I have never
had experience and do not know.” She said:) (302) “When
lie has fallen asleep from weariness after a drunken carouse,
or is soundly sleeping after the enjoyments of love, then you
must go to work, slowly and gently. (When he is sunk in sleep
that follows a drunken stupor, he is not easily aroused.) ” (303)
And he agreed to do just so. But in spite of this arrangement
that [flea]; (disregarding the proprieties of time and) suffering
from hunger, bit the king (in the back) in the (early part of
the) evening, when he was barely asleep. (304) But he (, the
king, as if burnt with a firebrand,) sprang up excitedly and
said: “See here! Something has bitten me; make search for
it!” (305) Then the flea (, frightened, upon hearing the king^s
words left the bed and) got into a crack elsewhere. (306) But
the guards of the bedchamber (at their lord’s command) brought
a light and (turned back the bed-clothes and) searcht (diligently).
(307) And they found Slow-crawl (hiding inside) and killed her.
(End of Story 7)
(308) Therefore I say: “Not to one whose character is un-
known” &c. (309) (And when the story was ended) Piflgalaka
said: “(Friend,) how can I be sure that he is a traitor (, and
what is his manner of fighting) ? ” (310) Damanaka said: “(At
other times he comes into Your Majesty’s presence in a free
and easy attitude. Today) if he approaches with his pointed
horns prepared to strike, (ready for battle,) looking this way
and that in alarm, then Your Majesty must understand that lie
304
Book I; Separation of Friends
is disposed to injure you/’ (311) Having spoken thus (and
having turned the lion s heart against him), Damanaka went
to see Saiiijivaka. (312) To liim also lie walkt up hesitatingly
and presented himself as one disquieted. (313) (Then) Sahijl-
vaka said to him (courteously) : (Friend,) is all well (with you)?’'
(314) Damanaka said: “How (, pray,) can it he well with
dependants ? (For :)
Their fortunes are at the mercy of another; their minds are
ever discontented ; they cannot be sure even of their own lives
— who are dependent on kings. 87. And this is well said:
Teachers and kings are like-natured. For there is no intimacy
nor friendship with them; the zealous obedience that has been
rendered them for no matter how long, — in their anger they
make nothing of it; it is like dust washt away by clouds of
rain. 88. (And again:)
What man upon earth obtains riches and is not puft up?
Whose misfortunes ever end? Who in this world has not had
his heart broken by women? Who, pray, is a friend to kings?
Who does not fall a prey to Death? What beggar has come
to exalted station? Or what man has ever come off scot-free
after falling into the snares of the wicked? 89. Therefore,
assuredly:
A man must ponder every moment on these questions: ^What
is the time?*^ What friends [have I]? What is the place?
What are my income and expenses? Who am I, and what is
my power?'” 90,
(315) (Upon hearing the words of Damanaka, who concealed
his true purpose in his heart,) Samjivaka said: “(Friend,) what
is the matter (now)?” (316) Said he: “Even tho a king's
confidence ought not to be revealed, still (I cannot forget that)
you came and remained here thru trust in me. So I must
without fail speak as your interests demand. (317) This our
lord Pingalaka is intending to harm you. He has said: (318)
H will kill Saiiijivaka and gratify my attendants (with his
flesh).' ” (319) Hearing this Samjivaka was plunged in deep
despair. (320) Damanaka said: “You must consider without
delay what is to be done in this case.” (321) And because in
That is, for what action is the present moment timely, and the present
place suitable?
Frame Story: Lion and Bull
305
former time lie had found Damanaka's word trustworthy,
Samjivaka's heart was oyer whelmed, and he was greatly afraid,
and said: “Truly this is well said:
Women are accessible to base men; a king as a rule cultivates
unworthy folk; money runs after misers^ and the god [of rain]
rains on mountains and on the sea/' 91.
(322) And he reflected as follows: ^^Alas! What is this that
has fallen upon me? (Moreover:)
Zealously one studies to please a king, and he is pleased;
what is strange in that? But this is an unheard-of manner of
idol, which when one serves it turns to enmity I 92.
(323) So (assuredly) there is nothing that can he done in
this matter.
For he whose anger is due to a cause will surely be appeased
when the cause is removed. But if his mind harbors groundless
hate, how shall another appease him? 93. And this is well said:
* When a foolish swan, hunting for the white-lotus shoots by
night, has bitten again and again at the reflection o£ a star in
the pond, and been deceived, afterwards he suspects that the
white-lotus is a star and does not bite it even by day. Made
wary by impostors, men look for something wrong even in the
righteous. 94. And yet:
Assuredly offenses cannot fail to occur even without a logical
cause, and fits of anger are certain to arise without reason.
But a man of exceptional intelligence, whose heart and whose
whole disposition have long been tested, should not be abandoned
without carefully looking into the facts of the case. 95. (And
again :)
A king whose physicians, seers, and ministers speak only
pleasant things, soon loses his health, virtue, and wealth.” 96.
(324) And he said: “What offense have I committed against
our lord (Pingalaka)?” (325) Damanaka said: (Friend,) kings,
you know, need no cause for being hostile (and they are always
looking for imperfections in others).” (326) Said the other:
“That is true, (And this is well said:)
Even for men who are devoted and helpful, who apply
themselves to friendly and useful activities, who know all about
the business of service and are free from treachery; evm for
Perhaps “priests”?
Bdgerton^ Paficatantra H.
306
Book It Separation of Friends
them disaster is certain if they once make a false step ; while
success may or may not come to them. Hence the service of a
lord of the earth is always dangerous, even as the service of
the lord of the waters [the ocean]. 97.
(327) (And this is their very nature.) ^
Many a kindness rendered by men of affectionate hearts still
leads to hatred, while injury treacherously inflicted hy others
still leads to naught but favor. Kings’ minds are hard to grasp,
and their humors are unstable j so that the conditions of ministry
are a profound mystery, which even magicians cannot fathom. 98.
Virtues are virtues only to those who can appreciate them;
when they touch one who lacks virtue they become faults. For
rivers tliat flow with sweetest water become undrinkable when
they reach the ocean. 99.
Even small virtues become great with men who are exalted
in virtue, like the rays of the moon when they touch the peak
of the White Mountain. 100.
Even hundreds of human virtues are lost among men that
are lacking in virtue, like moonbeams falling by night upon
the peaks of the Black Mountain. 101.
A hundred favors are lost upon the base; a hundred wise
sayings are lost upon the foolish; a hundred sage counsels are
lost upon one who cannot take advice; a hundred bits of
wisdom are lost upon the unintelligent. 102.
A gift to an unworthy person is lost; benevolence is lost
upon one who has not a benevolent heart and understanding;
a favor is lost upon the ungrateful; kindness is lost upon one
that does not appreciate virtue. 103.
To serve an unintelligent man is like crying in the wilderness,
rubbing the body of a dead man, planting water-lilies on dry
land, whispering in the ear of the deaf, bending a dog's tail, a
drenching rain on salt earth, or adorning the face of the blind. 104.
Snakes live in sandalwood-trees; in the waters are water-
lilies, but also crocodiles; scoundrels, we all know, are death
to good characters. Where, pray, can be found happiness in
enjoyments without something to spoil it? 105.
AeiaAl-flowers are beset with thorns; water-lilies grow out
of the mud; wantons are attended hy bawds; where is there a
jewel without a flaw?” 106.
Fi’ame Story: Lion and Bull
307
(328) Damanaka said: ^‘You see^ this our lord (Piugalaka)
was sweet in his words (in the beginning), hut (in the end)
his heart is like poison (, I perceive).’’ (329) Samjivaka
(meditated and) said: “(Friend, this is quite true.) I also have
experienst this from him. Since:
He holds out his hand to you from afar; his eyes glisten;
he offers half of his seat; he is quick with warm embraces; to
friendly words and questions he has a ready answer; hiding
poison within, he is all sweetness without, and exceedingly
skilled in deceit; what a monstrous manner of stage-play is this
that is practist by scoundrels! 107.
(In the beginning, to be sure, it has the bright ornaments
of civility, kind words, and courtesy; in the middle too it is
highly regarded for its flowers of beautiful words — which how-
ever bear no fruit; but at the end it is repulsive from the
stains of malice, discourtesy, and disgrace. Far be from you
association with ignoble men; it serves no good purpose. 108.)
(330) Alas! What common ground could there be for
association between me, a grass-eater, and a lion (that eats
flesh)? (And this is well said:)
When the sun with rays of fiery splendor rests on the sunset
mountain, the bee enters the lotus eager to drink from its
filaments, and recks not of its imprisonment within it, which
the twilight brings on. A greedy man thinks of no danger in
his single thirst for enjoyment. 109.
The faithless bees give up drinking the honey of the water-
rose, desert the newly-opened blue-lotus blossom, and reject
the heavily fragrant jasmine with its native charm, only to
come to grief in [seeking] the liquid on the temples of [rutting]
elephants.®^^ So men turn their backs on what is theirs for the
asking, and madly seek the lucky throws of the dice. 110.
The bees pursue the quick-flowing liquid on the borders of
the cheeks of rutting elephants, - eager to taste the fresh sweet
juice; but when they fall to the ground with limbs crusht by
the tossing gusts of wind from the fan-like ears of the elephants,
then they remember how they played in the cups of the
lotuses. 111.
See page 286, note 15. A word-play is inrolyed in this stanza; the same
word in Sanskrit means “ elephant’s temple ” and “ lucky throw at dioe.”
20^
308
Book It Separation of Friends
(331) But the truth is that this is (just) the weakness of
those who have fine qualities. (For;)
The multitude of its own fruits breaks the branches of a
tree; the mass of its tail-feathers makes the peacock’s movements
slow; the blooded horse that is quick of movement is made to
draw burdens like an ox; in a man of fine qualities those very
qualities, look you, oftentimes prove his enemies. 112.
(Most often kings turn their faces wholly away from a man
of good qualities; out of sheer greed women commonly grant
their favors to wicked and foolish men. False is the praise
which says that men’s eminence comes from their noble
qualities; for the people of this world as a rule reck not of a
man’s true nature. 113.)
With lions, imprisoned in cages, their wretched faces pining
away from the humiliation; with elephants, the sides of their
heads torn by goadhooks; with serpents, charmed to stillness;
^ith wise men, fallen into helpless misery, and with men of
prowess ruined by ill-luck, — Fate plays as with toys, tossing
them to and fro at her sweet will, 114.
(332) Now since I have entered a group of mean creatures,
my (very) life is assuredly lost. And it is said:
Many mean creatures, if they are clever and if they all live
by their wits, may work either harm or freedom from harm,
like the crow and his friends in the case of the camel.” 115.
(333) Damanaka said: “(And) how was that?” Said the other:
STORY 8: LION’S RETAINERS AND CAMEL
(334) In a cei’tain forest-region dwelt a lion named Haughty.
(335) He had three I'etainers, a leopard, a crow, and a jackal.
(336) Now as they were wandering (thru this forest) they came
upon a camel who had been abandoned by the master of a
caravan. (337) And the lion, seeing this absurd-looking creature,
(the like of which he had never seen before,) inquired of them:
(338) ^^Ask this creature who he is, and whence he comes (;
for he is unlike anything ever seen in this forest).” (339) Then
the crow, after he had found out the facts, reported: “This is
a camel named Fabulous,” (340) Then they gave him assurances
and brought him to the lion, (341) He for his part told all that
had happened to himself and how he had been separated from
Story 8: Lion’s Eatainars and Camel
309
the master of the caravan. (342) And the lion granted liim
protection and safe- conduct. (343) Now in the course of time
it chanced that the lion’s body was wounded by the tusks of a
(wild) elephant in battle, and he had to keep to his cave. (344)
And when a space of five or six (or seven) days had past by,
the retainers all became "(dangerously ill from lack of food.
(345) Since they -were in distress, the lion said to them:
(Because of this illness due to my wounds) I am unable to
get food for you (as before). (346) So why do not you make
some effort on your own account?” (347) Then they said:
“When Your Majesty is in such a state, what use have we for
nourishment for ourselves?” (348) The lion said: “Sirs, your
behavior is that of good retainers, and your devotion (to me)
is excellent. (You have spoken most creditably.) (349) ([But]
you are not disabled, and I am sick.) So (since I am in this
condition) do you bring me something to eat.” (350) (And when
they said nothing, he said to them: “Why are you so abasht?”)
(351) “Seek for. some creature or other; and I (even in my
present state) will provide you and myself with sustenance to
keep us alive.” (352) Thus addrest they (then arose and) went
into the midst of the forest, and began to roam about; but
when they found no animal, (353) then they excluded Fabulous
from their midst and began to plot a (wicked) scheme. (354)
(Now) the crow said: (“We are ruined by this our lord, altho
the means [of salvation] is at his disposal,”) (355) (The other
two said: “How so?” Said he:) “We will (simply) kill (this)
Fabulous^ and so save our lives. (Why not?)” (356) (They said :
“He has come to us as a trusting refugee, and we have admitted
him to our comradeship.” Said he:) (357) “Associations between
grass-eaters and flesh-eaters are incongruous.” (358) (Then)
they said: “'Our lord (too) has given safe-conduct to him.
Therefore this is (both improper and) impossible,” (359) (But
again) the crow said: “You stay here, until I (by myself) bring
this thing to pass,” (360) So saying he went to visit the lion.
(361) (And) the lion said: “Have you found any (creature)?”
(362) The crow said: “ He may find who has sight and strength;
but we are all of us blind and helpless from lack of food.
(363) However, I cannot refrain from making a timely
suggestion to my lord. You are destroying yourself by your
310
Book I; Separation of Friends
own fault, in spite of the fact that food is at your disposal.’'
(364) The lion said: so?" (365) The crow said:
‘'(Why,) this Fabulous here," (366) The lion said (angrily):
“Fie! That would be a piece of savagery. I have given him
(protection and) assurance of safety; so how can I kill him?
Moreover :
Not a gift of a cow, nor a gift of land, nor yet a gift of food,
is so important as the gift of safety, which is declared to be
the great gift among all gifts in this world.” 116,
(367) The crow said: “(0 how great is my lord's under-
standing in regard to right conduct ! But here is another thing
which is important, namely the saying of a great sage, that
for the sake of good, evil may be undertaken.) It is likewise
said :
For the sake of a family an individual may be sacrificed;
for the sake of a village a family may be sacrificed; for the
sake of a nation a village may be sacrificed; for the sake of
one's self the world may be sacrificed." 317.,
(368) (And he said further:) “Let not my lord kill him
himself. I have conceived how he may be killed by a trick."
(369) (Said he: “Just how?" The crow said:) (370) “(Why,
when he sees my lord and us in this condition,) he will himself
offer himself (for the nourishment of others, so that he may
gain heaven and [other] creatures may be benefited. There
would be no sin in this)." (371) When the crow had spoken
thus, the lion (seemed to be confused in his mind and) spoke
not a word. (372) But that [crow] went (back) to where the
others were, and spoke to them (singly), with tricky words:
(373) “See, our lord is in a serious condition. His life hangs
by a thread.®^ (Now without him who will protect us in this
wood?) So since the pain of hunger has brought him near
to the other world, let us (go of our own accord and) offer
him our bodies, that we may discharge the debt we owe to our
lord's grace." (374) So having agreed to do this they went to
visit the lion. Fabulous among them. (375) Then the crow said:
“Sire, we have found no food; (and) my lord is worn out with
long fasting. So by all means eat my flesh." (376) (Thereupon)
Literally, “ his life has got into the end of his nose.”
Possibly hunger and disease ” instead of “ the pain of hunger.”
Story 8: Lion’s Retainers and Cam el. —Frame Story: Lion and Bull 311
the lion said: ^‘Your body, Sir, is (very) small Even if I ate
your body I should not get any satisfaction from it.” (377)
(And when he had withdrawn) the jackal (likewise) spoke as
follows: “My body amounts to more than his; so save your
life with mine.” (378) To him also the lion made the same
reply. (379) (And when he had withdrawn) the leopard said:
“ My body amounts to more than theirs; eat it” (380) To him
likewise he replied: “Your body also is [too] small” (381)
Hearing this Fabulous thot: “No one at all is going to lose
his life here. (So) I too will say the same.” (382) Then he
(arose and approacht the lion and) said: “Sire, (my body
amounts to more than theirs; so) save your life with my body.”
(383) Before the words were out of his mouth the leopard and
the jackal had torn open both his flanks, and he perisht on
the spot and was devoured.
(End of Story 8)
(384) Therefore I say: “Many mean creatures, if they are
clever ” &c. (385) (And when the story was finisht) Samjivaka
said again to Damanaka: “(Friend,) this king is attended by
mean creatures, which augurs ill for those who depend on him.
And it is said:
Better a vulture attended by swans that live contentedly in
the w^ater, than a swan attended by savage carrion-birds that
eat flesh. A mean retinue destroys even a man of fine qualities,
“while even one lacking in virtue becomes virtuous if his followers
are above meanness. 118.
(386) Now this king has been turned against me by some
one or other. And this is well said :
Whole surfaces are carried away even from a mountain
when undermined by a gentle flow of water; how much more
the soft hearts of men by clever persons who attack them with
slander! 119.
(387) Now in this case what would be a timely thing to do?
Why, what else than to fight? (It would be unfitting to wait on
his commands.) And it is said:
When even a parent [or, an elder] is arrogant and knows< not
what he should do and what he should not do, and strays into
evil paths, it is proper to punish him, 120.
312
Book I; Separation of Friends
The worlds that seekers of heaven attain by countless sacri-
fices, by mortification of the self and by quantities of alms,
even those same worlds are attained in an instant by men of
valor who lose their lives in a good fight. 121.
Life and fame and wealth — all these must, I say, be defended
by fighting. Death in battle is the most glorious for men. Who
lives under the sway of his foe — it is he that is dead. 122.
Either he will die and gain heaven, or else he will destroy
his foes and gain [earthly] joy. Assuredly both these blessings
of men of valor are hard to attain.^^ 123.
(388) Damanaka said: “Friend, that is not the right proce-
dure. For:
He who knows not his enemy’s prowess, yet starts a quarrel,
surely comes to grief, as the sea did thru the strandbird.” 124,
(389) Saiiijlvaka said: “(And) how was that?” Damanaka
said :
STORY 9: STRANDBIRDS AND SEA
(390) (Once upon a time, in a certain place) on the sea-shore
dwelt a pair of strandbirds. (391) (Now once) when the female
bird was about to lay her eggs, she said to her mate: (392)
“(Sir,) find some place that is suitable for me to lay my eggs.”
(393) Said he: “Why surely this very place is excellent; lay
your eggs right here.” (394) She replied: “Don^t speak of this
place; it is dangerous; for (perchance) the flood-tide of the sea
may wash up with its waves and carry off my young.” (395)
He said: “My dear, the sea cannot undertake (such) a conflict
with me.” (396) She replied laughing: “There is a great
difference between your power and the sea's! How can you
fail to realize your own strength and weakness? And it is
said:
It is hard to know oneself, and to appraise one’s capacity or
incapacity for a given task. He who has this kind of discernment
does not come to grief even in a hard place. 125. (And
again :)
If one heeds not the advice of friends and well-wishers, he
perishes like the foolish tortoise who fell from the stick.” 126.
(397) The male bird said: “(And) how was that?” She
replied:
story D; Strandbirds and Sea.— Story 10; Geese and Tortoise 313
STORY 10: GEESE AND TORTOISE
(398) Once upon a time a tortoise named Shellneck liA^ed in
a certain lake. (399) He had two friends, geese, named* Slim
and Ugly. (400) Now in the course of time a (twelve-years’)
drought came upon them. Then the two [geese] decided: (401)
‘*This lake has lost its water. We will go to another lake.
(402) But first we will take leave of our dear friend Shellneck
(here, whom we have knowm so long).” (403) They did so; but
the tortoise said to them: (404) ‘^(Why do you take leave of
me? Nay,) if you love me, then you should save me also from
the jaw^s of death. (For) it is clear that you will suffer no more
than a (mere) scarcity of food in this lake in which the water
is low; but for me it means nothing less than death. So bethink
you, which is more serious, loss of food or loss of life?” (405)
The two [geese] replied: “(Rightly spoken; quite true. How-
ever— you know what the occasion demands!) We will (without
fail) take you along; (406) but you must not (be so thotless as
to) say anything on the way.” (The tortoise said: “Very well,
I will not,” and the two geese brought a stick and said:) (407)
“(Now) grasp this stick firmly in the middle with your teeth,
(408) As for us, we will take hold of it by both ends and carry
you far aw^ay (thru the air) to a large lake.” (409) Thus it was
done. And when the tortoise was seen as he was being carried
over a city that was near that lake, (410) the people raised an
uproar, saying: “What is that (thing like a wagon- wheel) that
is being carried (thru the air by two birds)?” (411) (And)
hearing this the tortoise (, whose end was at hand, let go of
the stick and) said: (412) “What is all this fuss about?” (413)
Even as he spoke, (at that moment) he dropt from the stick
and fell to the ground. (414) And the people, eager for his
meat, cut him to pieces (with sharp knives as soon as he struck
the ground).
(End of Story 10)
(416) Therefore I say: “[If one heeds not the advice] of
friends and well-wishers” &c. (416) And again she said:
“Forethot and Ready- wit both prosper in peace; Gome-what-
will perishes.” 127.
(417) The male bird said: “ (And) how was that? ” She said:
314
Book I; Separation of Friends
STORY 11: FORETHOT, READY-WIT, AND COME-
WHAT-WILL
(418) Once upon a time three large fish dwelt in a certain
(big) pond. (419) (Their names were) Forethot, Ready-wit, and
Oome-what-will. (420) Now once Forethot (as he was swimming
around in the water) heard the words of some fishermen who
were passing (near by): (421) ‘^This pond has plenty of fish;
(so) tomorrow we will catch the fish in it” (422) And hearing
this Forethot reflected: ^‘They are sure to come back; so I
will (take Ready-wit and Come-what-will along and) take refuge
in another pond (whose stream is not blockt)/^ Thereupon he
called his friends and askt them to go [with him]. (423) Then
Ready- wit said: the fishermen come here, then I will save
myself by some means or other suited to the circumstances.”
(424) But Come-what-will (, whose end was at hand,) paid no
heed to his words, and took no steps (to go). (426) So (seeing
that both of them were determined to stay there,) Forethot
(entered the stream of the river [the outlet of the lake] and)
went to another lake. (426) And on the next day (after he left)
the fishermen (with their followers blockt the river from within
and) threw in a (scoop-)net and caught all the fish to the last
one. (427) (When this had happened) Ready-wit assumed the
aspect of a dead fish, and made himself appear so (as he lay
in the net). (428) And they thot: ^*This (big fish) is already
dead;” and they (took him out of the net and) laid him down
near the water. (429) (But) thereupon he jumpt up and fled
(in great haste) to another lake. (430) But Come-what-will (had
no idea what to do, and he) moved aimlessly about this way
and that till he was caught in the net and killed with clubs.
(End of Story 11)
(431) Therefore I say: “Forethot” &c. (432) The male
strandbird said: “(My dear, do you think that I am like Come-
what-will? Now) be not afraid; while my right arm protects
you who can do you harm? ” (433) Then the female bird laid
her eggs in that same place. (434) (Bht) the sea, which had
overheard his previous boasting, was curious about the matter,
and carried off the eggs, thinking: “I will, (just) see what he
will do.” (435) (Then when she saw that the nest was empty)
story 0: Strandbirds and Sea.— Frame Story: Lion and Bull 3lo
tlie female bird was filled with grief, and said to her mate: (436)
“Now see, this (disaster) has happened (to unhappy me,) just
as I told you before; (because we chose an unfavorable place,)
we haA^e lost our young/^ (437) The male bird said: “My dear,
see now Avhat I can do too ! ’’ (438) Then he called an assembly
of the birds and told them of his distress caused by the carrying
off of his young. (439) Then one (bird) said: “We cannot fight
Avith the ocean, (440) But (this is what it would be well to do
now:) let us all of us complain to Garu^a^^ and so arouse him,
{He will remove the cause of our grief.) (441) So deciding
they weat to see Garuda. (442) But he had been summoned
by (the Lord) Naraya^ia [Visnu] for a battle between the gods
and the demons. (443) And (just at that moment) the birds
reported to the lordly king of the birds the grief which the
ocean had caused them by taking their young away from them.
(444) (And they said:) “Sire, while you are (shining as) our
lord, Ave (, Avho depend only on our beaks for support and
have little to eat,) have been injured by the ocean; he has
stolen our young/^ (445) (And) Garuda Aras enraged when he
heard of the injury to his subjects. (446) (But the god)
Narayana [Visnu] knew what was in his mind (because of his
power of knowing past, present, and future), and went to see
him of his own accord. (447) Now when Garuda saw the god,
Avith deeply doubled heart he said: “Is it fitting that I should
suffer this humiliation from the accursed ocean, when you are
my lord? (448) (And haAung been informed of the facts) the
god smiled and said to the ocean: (449) “(Now) give (the
strandbird) back his eggs. (450) Else I shall scorch you with
weapons of flame (and dry up your waves with countless
thousands of submarine fires ^^) and reduce you to dry land.’^
(451) Thereupon (at the god’s command) the ocean in alarm
gave back the eggs to the strandbird,
(End of Story 9)
(452) Therefore I say: “He who knows not his enemy’s
prowess” &c. (453) And Saihjlvaka, having understood the
A mythical bird, upon which the god Vi^pu rides; regarded M king
of the birds. Originally the sun conceived as a bird.
The Hindus believed in the existence of an infernal fixe under the ocean.
316
Book I: Separation of Priends
meaning of this, askt him: Friend, (tell me,) what is his
method of fighting?^' (454) Said he: “(At other times he is
wont to remain sitting on a flat rock with limbs carelessly relaxt
as he looks towards you. Today) if first of all he stands gazing
in your direction (while you are yet afar off), with uplifted
tail, his four feet drawn together, with open mouth and ears
erect, (455) then you may know that he has a hostile purpose
towards you, and (you also) may act accordingly.’^ (456) Having
spoken thus Damanaka went to see Karataka. (457) And the
latter said to him: “What have you accomplisht?” (458) Said
he: “1 have sown enmity between them (as I intended. You
will see by the outcome. And) what is surprising in this? It
is said:
Dissension, well directed, may divide even the true-hearted,
as a mighty stream of waters [divides] mountains of solid
rock.” 128.
(459) Having spoken thus Damanaka (along with Karataka)
went to where Pingalaka was. (460) Saihjivaka too, (perturbed
at heart,) walking very slowly, [came and] saw that the lion’s
appearance was just as it had been described [by Damanaka] ; and
(as he slunk into his presence) he reflected: “This is truly said:
Like a house within which a serpent is hidden, or a wood
full of beasts of prey; like a shady pool full of charming
water-lilies but infested with crocodiles; so the minds of kings
are ever defiled by mean, lying, and ignoble men; it is hard in
this world for tirdorous servants to penetrate them.” 129.
(461) (So he took measures for his own protection, in the
manner described [by Damanaka].) And Pingalaka too, when
he saw him presenting this appearance, believed the words of
Damanaka, and sprang upon him (in fury). (462) (Then)
Saihjivaka’s back was rent by the tips of his hatchet-like®^
claws; but striking with the ends of his horns he tore open
the lion’s belly and made shift to get loose from him. (468)
(And once more) there ensued a terrific fight between the two
enraged creatures. (464) And when Karataka saw that both of
them were turned the [red] color of jpcxZ<!!^a-trees in bloom, he said
(reproachfully) to Damanaka: (465) “Shame on you, villain!
You have caused all this trouble by your folly.
Or, “ thunderbolt-like.”
Frame Story; Lion and Bull
317
True ministers are they whose political skill enables them
to settle by mere peaceful negotiation matters which [others]
would accomplish by strenuous measures and which would lead
to extreme force and violence. But as for those who seek
small and unsubstantial advantages by the ill-advised use of
force, they by their imprudent conduct set the tinges fortune
in hazard. 130. (Therefore, 0 fool!)
Surely conciliation is the means which should always he
tried first by him who knows his business. For policies that
are carried out by conciliation do not end in disaster. 131,
Not by a radiant jewel, not by the sun nor by fire, but by
conciliation alone is dispelled the darkness born of enmity. 132.
Fourfold political methods are known, beginning with
conciliation and ending with violence. But of these violence is
the worst; therefore it should be avoided. 133. (And again:)
Conciliation, bribery, and sowing of dissension, these three
are an ever-open door of wisdom. But the fourth [and last]
method is declared by the noble to be heroic action. 134,
The might of the mighty— of elephants, vipers, lions, fire,
water, wind, and the sun — is seen to be fruitless against the
onslaught of the political methods. 135.
Many heroes have gone forth, tall and broad-shouldered, not
foolish either, but possest of insight; why have they followed
the leader? 136.
(466) (And furthermore) you hare gone too far in arrogant
reliance on the fact that you are a hereditary minister, and
this also will be fatal to you.
If one gets learning, but does not then devote his whole
soul to controlling the senses; if it does not make the intellect
A technical term of political acience. The other two methods ” are
bribery and sowing of dissension (between one^s enemies). Of, following
verses.
Meaning, apparently, that this should be used only as a last resort.
So following HerteVs interpretation, which the Syriac version seems to
support. But I feel very uncfertain of the rendering of anvgatd g(iiem\ it
would seem more naturally to mean “ why have they followed him who has*
past away [died]?” (answer: because they relied on violence rather than
on the better methods of conciliation &c.”) If HerteBs rendering is right,
the implied answer is: ‘‘because ihe leader {gcda) knew the right political
methods and so could control them [the heroes].”
318
Book I: Separation of Friends
useful, if it does not abide in righteousness, if mere embellishments
of oratory before men are the only results of its acquisition,
if it makes neither for peace nor for glory; what profit is there
in such learning? 137,
' (467) (Now in [political] science counsel is said to have five
elements, namely: the plan of the thing to be undertaken,
provisions of men and money; discrimination in the choice of
time and place, prevention of impending disasters, and successful
completion of the project.®^) (468) (At present) this our lord
is in grave danger; therefore we must devise a means of
prevention (of disaster). And again:
Skill is shown in action; that of ministers in patching up
splits, and that of physicians in a complicated disease. When
all is well who cannot be wise? 138.
(469) Now, fool, your mind is perverse, and because you
fancy yourself clever you are devising your own ruin. And
this is well said:
Learning, the destroyer of arrogance, begets arrogance in
fools; even as light, that illumines the eye, makes owls
blind.” 139.
(470) (And) when Karataka saw his lord in that lamentable
plight, he (was overwhelmed with grief and) said: “This
disaster has overtaken my lord thru unwise counsel. (And after
all) this is well said:
Kings who follow the advice of the base, and do not walk
in the path taught by the wise, enter a tangle of misfortunes
containing all manner of afflictions; and the way out is
hard, 140.
(471) (Now, fool, it is clear that) everyone strives to have
his lord attended by men of excellence. (But you have created
dissension by your slanderous words and separated your lord
from his friend.) With such .as you how can our lord have
the advantage of being attended by men of excellence? And it
is said:
No one approaches a king, even if his qualities he noble, if
he have an evil minister. He is like a pool of clear and sweet
water in which vicious crocodiles dwell. 141.
Quotation from the Kiintlllya ArthasSstra, the Textbook of Political
Science attributed to CS^akya (c/, p. 271 note 1 passim).
Frame Story: Lion and Bull
319
(472) But you, being (mainly) bent on your own aggrandize-
ment, desire (rather to render) the king isolated. (Fool, do you
not know this? — )
A king with many followers is glorious^ never one who is
isolated. Those who wish him isolated are declared to be his
foes. 142,
(473) (And you do not understand this. Therefore the Creator
has produced [in you] a clear case in which the form belies
[the nature]. For:)
One should seek for the salutary in the unpleasant; if it is
there, it is after all nectar. One should seek for the deceitful
in the pleasant; i£ it is there, it is after all poison. 143.
(474) (Moreover,) you are tormented with jealousy at seeing
others enjoy pleasures, and this also is wicked, to act thus
towards (devoted) friends. For:
Fools assuredly are they who seek to win a friend by
treachery, righteousness by deceit, abundance of wealth by
oppression of others, learning by ease, or a woman by harsh-
ness. 144. (Also:)
Whatever good befalls a minister, the same is profitable for
the king as well. What would the ocean be without its waves,
that rise on high and gleam like gems? 145.
(475) And one who has won the favor of his lord ought to
be the more particularly well-behaved. And it is said:
Just so far as a lord treats his servant with favor [or, punningly,
* radiance’], even so far is the path of the cowering [servant]
illumined, however lowly it be. 146.
(476) (Therefore your character is insignificant. And it is said:)
A great man does not lose his self-possession when he is
afflicted; the ocean is not made muddy by the falling in of its
banks. A worthless man is perturbed by even a very trifling
cause; the cZarJAa-grasses sway even in a languid breeze. 147.
(477) And yet, after all, this is our lord^s own fault, because
he takes counsel with such as you (, who make your living out
of a mere pretense of counsel and are quite ignorant of the use of
the six forms of policy.^® He shows no regard for the attainment
of the three [objects of human desire].**^ And this is well said) :
These are listed in § 188, p. 298.
See page 272, note 4.
320
Book I: Separation of Friends
(Kin^s who delight in servants that speak hrilliant and
pleasing words but do not bend their hows— *their dominions
are enjoyed by their enemies. 148.)
(478) (Now assuredly) by (these) your actions you have made
it clear (that your statesmanship was inherited, and) that without
doubt your father was (just) like you. (But how can this be
known?) Because:
The son must needs follow in his father’s path. For myro-
balan-fruits do not grow on a ketaka-tveOil 149.
(479) (And if a man is wise and his character is profound,
no enemy finds a breach in his defenses by which he might
break in upon him, no, not in a long time, unless he himself
carelessly reveals an opening. And this is well said:)
Who could discover, even by tx'ying hard, the peacocks’
place of excretion, were they themselves not so foolish as to
dance in joy at the rumble of the thunder-cloud?^^ 150.
(480) (Now in any case) what use is there in giving
instruction to (a wretch like) you? (And it is said:)
You cannot bend wood that is unbendable; you cannot use
a knife on a stone. Know from Needle-beak that you cannot
teach one who cannot learn.” 151.
(481) Damanaka said: “(And) how was that?” Karataka said:
STORY 12: APE, GLOW-WORM, AND BIRD
(482) In a certain forest-region there was a herd of apes.
(483) And (once upon a time) in the winter(-season), when they
were suffering from cold and in great distress, they saw a
glow-worm and took it for fire. (484) They covered it over
with dry sticks, grass, and leaves which they gathered, and
stretcht out their arms, (and rubbed their arm-pits, bellies, and
chests,) and actually felt the comfort of (imaginaiy) warmth.
(485) (Then) one ape (among them, who was especially chilly,)
kept blowing upon it all the time with his lips (, giving his
whole attention to it). (486) Now a bird named Needle-beak
(saw this, and) flew down from a tree and said: (487) “ (Friend,)
do not trouble yourself, this is no fire, it is a glow-worm.”
(488) But the other gave no heed to his words and went on
This alleg^ed habit of peacocks is frequently mentioned in Indian poetry.
story 12; Ape, Glow-worm, and Bird — Frame Story; Lion and Bull 321
blowing*. (489) And tho be tried over and over again to stop
him, he would not stop. (490) (To make a long story short,)
the bird kept coming close to his ear and nagging at him
insistently; (491) until (at last) the ape was enraged, and
seizing him violently smote him against a stone and killed him.
(End of Story 12)
(492) Therefore I say: “You cannot bend wood that is un-
bendable^’ &c. (493) “And after all:
What can learning accomplish, bestowed on a worthless
person? It is like a light in a house placed in a covered vessel.
152.
(494) (So you are assuredly misbegotten. And it is said:)
(Those whose ideas are based on sound knowledge must
recognize in this world the begotten son, the after-begotten,^^
the super-begotten, and the misbegotten. 153.)
(Now the begotten [son] has qualities like the mother; the
after- begotten is like the father; the super-begotten is
superior to the latter; the misbegotten is the lowest of the low.
154.)
(495) (And this is well said:)
He who bears the yoke of the family by his far-reaching
intelligence, riches, and power — only he is a real son to his
mother. 155. (And again:)
Where can you not find excellence that flowers but for a
passing moment? But a man adorned with lasting accomplish-
ments is hard to find. 156.
(496) Now, fool, you make no reply! It is said:
His voice is broken^ his face and color are altered^ his
look is frightened, his body is easily startled; for a man
who has committed a crime is utterly terrified by his own act.
157.
(497) And this is well said:
Evil-wit and No-wdt — the one is as bad as the other, I ween.
The son, because he was all too clever, caused his father^s
death by smoke.’^ 158.
(498) Damanaka said: “(And) bow was that?” Kai>taka
said:
^ Or, ‘Mike-begotten.'’
EdgertoD, Pafi^catantm. II.
322
Book I: Separation of Friends
STORY 13: EVIL-WIT AND HONEST-WIT
(499) (Once upon a time) in a certain city there were two
merchants^ sons who were (g'ood) friends; and their names
were Evil-wit and Honest-wit. (500) They went to another
(distant) country to seek their fortunes. (501) (Now) on the
way the one (merchant's son) who was named Honest-wit (,
because of his merit [acquired by past deeds],) found a thousand
(silver) dinars in a purse (where a usurer had once hidden it).
(502) (But) he took counsel with Evil-wit (, and they came to
this decision): “We have got all we want, (so) let us (take it
and) go to our own city." So they went back. (603) When
they were nearly home, Honest- wit said: “Let us divide the
dinars half and half (and let us enter our homes and henceforth
live in splendor in the sight of our friends and kinsmen and
the other people)." (504) (Then) Evil-wit, whose heart harbored
guile, said to him, in the hope of carrying out a plan of his
own: (505) “Friend, while we have money left in common,
our friendly relations will remain unbroken. (506) Rather let
us take a hundred apiece and bury the rest (right here) in the
ground, and go to our homes, and when occasion arises here-
after, we will come and take hence the little that we need."
(507) The other replied: “As you say." So they did as suggested,
and hid the rest of the money carefully in the ground at the
foot of a tree, and went to their homes. (508) (Now in the
course of that year Evil-wit used up his share, because he spent
money on vicious indulgences and because his merit [acquired
by past deeds] was scanty; and he and Honest- wit took more
money from the store and divided it, a hundred apiece. And
by the end of the second year this also was used up in the
same way.) (609) Hereupon Evil-wit thot: (510) “(If I divide
with him again [and we take] a hundred apiece, the remaining
four hundred will be too little to be worth stealing.) I will
(take the six [hundred] that are left and) make them all mine."
(51 1) So deciding he went by himself and took away the store
of money and smoothed over the ground where it had been,
(512) (And) not more than a month later he (went and) said
to Honest-wit (without waiting for a suggestion from him):
(513) “Friend, I have a bill to meet; (come,) let us divide
equally the money that is left." (514) And when Honest-wit
St, 13; Evil- wit and Ho nest- wit. — St. 14: Herons, Snake and Mongoose 323
agreed, they went together to that place and began to dig. (515)
And when the ground was dug open and the money was not to
be found, (516) then Evil-wit (in his impudence did not wait for
his friend to say anything, hut) heat his own head with a stone
and said in great excitement: (617) “0 Honest-wit! You must
have stolen this money (and no other. Now give me half of
it)!'' (518) Said the other: “I am not the man to commit such
a theft. You have stolen it." (619) So quarreling with each
other they went to court. (520) And when the case had been
stated (and heard), the judges arrested both of them, because
the matter was so obscure tliat it was hard to decide. (521)
And after a space of five days Evil-wit declared (to the judges) :
(522) have a witness (in this matter of the dinars; now
question him)." (623) (But) they (, hoping to settle the case,)
askt him: ^‘Who is your witness? (Produce him.)" (524) He
said: “The (very same) tree at the roots of which the money
was placed; even that is my witness." (525) (Then) the judges
were astonisht and said: “How shall a tree give evidence?
Very well, tomorrow he shall prove his statement." (526) And
they let (both of) them go to their homes, taking surety from
them. (527) (Then) Evil-wit went home and besought his father
[saying]: (528) “ Father, the dinars are in my hands. (But)
they depend solely on a word from you." (529) His father said:
“ What am I to do about it? " (530) Said he: “ You must enter
into the trunk of that tree tonight and remain hidden there.
(531) And tomorrow when the judges put the question you
must say: ‘ Honest-wit took the money.' " (532) (Thereupon)
his father said: “My son, we are ruined. For (this will not
do. And it is well said):
A wise man should think of what is expedient, but he should
also think of what is inexpedient. While the foolish heron was
looking on, his young were eaten by the mongooses." 169.
(533) The son said: “ (And) how was that? " His father replied:
STORY 14: HERONS; SNAKE, AND MONGOOSE
(534) (Once upon a time) in a certain [arjuna-)itm dwelt a
pair of herons. (535) Now as often as they had young, (before
their wings were grown) they were always eaten by a (monstrous)
snake which came up the hollow trunk of the tree. (536) The
324
Book I: Separation of Friends
male heron lost his senses hy reason of this grief, and abstaining
from food went to the shore of a pond and sat there (in deep
dejection). (537) (Then) a (certain) crab saw him there and
said: (Uncle,) why are you downcast (today)? ” (538) He told
(him) what had happened, how his young had been eaten.
(539) But the crab comforted him [saying]: ^HSir^) I will tell
you how you can kill him. (540) You know this mongoose-hole
here; start from it and scatter fish-meat in an unbroken line
up to the snake’s hole. (541) Then the mongooses will he greedy
for this food, and they will be sure to come and find bim (there),
and (because of tbeir natural hostility ^^) will kill him.” (542)
This plan was adopted, and the mongooses followed the (path
of the) fish-meat; and (, mindful of their ancient feud,) they
killed the snake. (543) [But] having once found the way they
followed it and came to the nest of the herons in the tree, and
ate the herons’ young.
(End of Story 14)
(544) Therefore I say: “A wise man should think of what is
expedient ” &c. (545) Even after he had heard this story, Evil-
wit (, blinded by avarice,) took his father by night (against
his will) and put him in the hollow of the tree. (546) (Then)
in the morning; after texts from the lawbooks had been read
before the tree in the presence of the court officials, a voice
came fortli from the tree saying: “ Honest- wit took the money.”
(547) (And) hearing this Honest-wit thot: “ How can this be?
It is monstrous and impossible that such a thing should happen.
I will climb the tree itself and look into it.” (548) So he lookt
into it, and he collected a heap of dry wood and leaves and
filled the hollow of the tree and set fire to it. (549) And (when
it blazed up) Evil-wit’s father, (with his body) half burnt,
(his eyes bursting out,) shrieking piteously and almost dead,
came out (from the hollow of the tree) and fell on the ground.
(550) Then all gazed at him in astonishment, and they askt
him: (551) (“ Tell us, what does this mean? ”) (552) (To which)
he replied: is this wicked son of mine, (Evil- wit,) that has
brought me to this plight.” (553) As he spoke these words he
Snakes and mongooses (ichneumons) are proverbial enemies, like cats
and mice.
story 14. —Story 13,— Frame Story, — Story 16; Iron-eatitigf Mice 325
died. (554) Then the king’s judges perceived the truth, and
commanded that the money be given to Honest-wit, and impaled
Evil-wit
(End of Story 13)
(555) Therefore I say: “ Evil-wit and No- wit ” &c, (656) And
after telling this story Karataka said again (to Damanaka):
“(Out upon you, fool!) You have shown yourself much too
clever j you have burnt your own household. And this is well
said:
Rivers come to an end in salt water, friendly hearts come
to an end in women’s quarrelS; a secret comes to an end in a
tattler, and families come to an end in evil sons. 160.
(557) (Moreover,) if a man has two tongues in a single mouth,
who would trust him? (And it is said:)
Double-tongued and terrifying, utterly cruel and pitiless,— a
scoundrel’s mouth, like a serpent’s, does nothing but harm. 161.
(558) (Now) this action of yours endangers me also. How so?
Do not trust a malicious man because you have long been
intimate with him. A serpent will still bite, tho it may have
been kept and tended a long time. 162.
An lionest wise man should be cultivated; with a crafty wise
man one should be on his guard; an honest fool, however, is
to be treated with compassion; while a crafty fool should be
shunned utterly. 163.
(569) (Your performances have not only ruined your own
family, but you have now committed an offense against your
lord as well.) (560) Therefore, since you have reduced your
(own) lord to this plight, anyone else would be as a blade of
grass in your eyes. And it is said:
Where mice eat a balance made of a thousand [pounds] of
iron, there a falcon might carry off an elephant; why be sur-
prised at [its carrying off] a boy? ” 164.
(561) Damanaka said: “(And) how was that?” Said the other:
STORY 16: IRON-EATING MICE
(562) In a certain town there was a merchant’s son . who had
lost his money. (563) He set out for a far country to seek
his fortune. (564) (And) he had (in his house) a balance made
326
Book I: Soparation of Friends
o£ a thousand palas^^ of iron (which he had inherited from
his ancestors). (565) (And) he deposited this with another
merchant's son and went into a far country (to seek his fortune).
(566) And because his luck was bad he returned without having
made anything (even after trying a long time); and he askt
from that [other merchant] the balance (which he had deposited
with him). (567) But he (being avaricious) said: That (balance)
has been eaten by mice.” (568) (Then) the other thot: “ (This
is a strange thing!) How can mice eat a balance made of a
thousand [pounds] of iron? ” (569) And smiling inwardly he
said: “ Of course! Quite natural! (For) iron is (stimulating and)
sweet (and soft); why should not the mice eat it?” So he
assented in words. (570) But the other, greatly delighted at
heart, (began to offer him hospitality, with washing of the feet
and so on, and) invited him to dinner. (571) (And there was
a river not far from his house. Thither,) when the guest set
out to bathe, his host also sent his (only) son (after him) with
myrobalan-fruits and a bathrobe. (672) But the other, after bathing-,
(on his way back) hid the boy safely away in another friend's
house and returned to the merchant's house. (573) And the
merchant askt him: (574) Where is my son that I sent after
you? (He has not come back to my house.) ” (575) (Then) he
replied: He was carried off by a falcon.” (576) Upon hearing
this he was (greatly) dismayed, and (seized him harshly by
the arm and) dragged him into court (577) And he said:
*^Help! (Help!) This man (is a villain and) has hidden my son
(somewhere).” (578) And the judges askt him (: What about
this? What have you to say? ”) (579) He said (smiling): “He
was carried off by a falcon.” (680) (Then) they (were astonisht
and) said: “(That is unheard-of!) How can a falcon carry off
a boy? ” (681) Said he: “ What is there strange in that?
Where mice eat a balance made of a thousand [pounds] of
iron, there a falcon might carry off an elephant; why be sur-
prised at [its carrying off] a boy? ” 165.
(582) Hearing this, and having learned the facts, the judges
said: “Give him his balance (of a thousand [pounds] of iron),
Most versions specify no unit of weigiit; the two Sanskrit ones which
mention a unit agree on the palci, which is really only a fraction (not far
from a quarter) of a pound.
story 15; Irou-eatmg Mice.—Frame Story: Lion and Bull 327
and then he on his part will bring back the hoy.” (Thereupon
they both did so.)
(End of Story 15)
(583) Therefore I say: ‘‘[Where mice eat] a bahance of a
thousand [pounds] of iron ” &c. (584) (So what is the use of
instructing you, since you are as void of understanding as a
beast?) Wisdom spreads in a learned man, oil on water, (poison
in the blood,) intimacy among the good, (affection among fond
women,) a secret among the base, and nobility in the world of
the distinguisht. (Because:)
A man’s nobility lies not in the regulations of his caste
the fame of mortals has its roots in their conduct. Disrepute,
which brings in its train a whole network of disasters, hundreds
of them, pursues the ungrateful in this world and in the next. 166.
(585) And as for your (constant) hostility to all who show the
finest qualities, this also is due to your natural temper. How so?
As a rule in this rrorld the base-born cease not to envy men of
noble birth; those who are unlucky [in love] envy a favorite of
women; stingy men envy the generous, dishonest men the honest,
mean men the glorious; those who are afflicted with ugliness
envy the beautiful; the poor envy the well-to-do, and fools envy
him who is verst in all manner of learning. 167. And after all:
It is worth while to instruct a man only if he understands
what has once been said. But you are dull as a stone; what
profit is there in instructing you? 168.
(586) (Moreover, 0 fool,) it is not wise even to remain in
your company, (Otherwise thru association with you some barm
may perchance come to me too. And it is said:)
By associating with good and evil persons a man acquires the
virtues and vices [which they possess], even as the wind blowing
over different places takes along good and bad odors. 169,
(You are skillful only in malice, and a destroyer of friendship;
nothing can turn out well where such as you are in control. 170.)
(587) And also: (Malicious men get no advantage for them-
selves, but only ruin. Even in dire straits the righteous never
attempt anything that should not be done. For thus [it is said]:)
Or, ‘‘family.”
Hertel’s text and translation (Tantrakhyayika A 119) are both wrong.
328
Book I; Separation of 'Friends
What should not be done should positively not be done; a wise
man should not set his mind upon it. For even if tormented with
extreme thirst, men do not drink water that lies in the road.” 171.
(588) So speaking Karataka departed from his presence.
(589) Now when Pisgalaka had killed Samjivaka, (590) his
anger was cooled; he (wiped his blood-stained hand, and) said^
sighing, tormented with grief and full of repentance: (591)
^*Alas! It is a (very) wrong thing that I have done in killing
Saihjivaka, who was like my other self. And it is said:
As to the loss of a parcel of excellent land^ or the loss of
a wise servant — the loss of servants is the death of kings; lost
land is more easily regained than servants.” 172.
(592) * (And) when Damanaka saw him (, Piflgalaka,) thus
(lamenting and) overcome with grief^ he (crept up to him
stealthily and) said: Is this proper, (or is it good policy^) to
grieve because you have killed your rival? And it is said:
Be he father or brother, be he son or friend — he that threatens
a king’s life must be killed, if the king will prosper. 173,
A tender-hearted king, a brahman that eats everything,^® a
disobedient woman, an ill-natured friend, a refractory servant,
a negligent official — these must be shunned, and one who shows
no gratitude. 174.
(Go even a long journey where pleasure awaits you; ask a
wise person, the he he a child; give your very body to one in
need who asks for it; cut off your very arm if it offend yon, 175.)
(593) (And, you know, the morality which is common to
ordinary mortals is not required of kings. And it is said:)
A kingdom cannot he ruled according to the common standards
of men. For what are vices in men [in general], the same are
virtues in a king. 176, And also:
True and false, harsh and gentle in speech, savage and at
the same time compassionate, avaricious and generous, lavish in
spending yet taking in great amounts nf wealth from many
sources — like a harlot, the conduct of kings is changeful” 177,
(594) Being thus consoled by Damanaka, Piogalaka recovered
his composure (and continued to enjoy the pleasures of
sovereignty as before, with Damanaka as his minister).
Here ends the First Book, called the Separation of Friends.
Not observing the caste regulations of diet.
BOOK II
THE WINNING OF FRIENDS, OR, THE DOVE,
CROW, MOUSE, TORTOISE, AND DEER
(1) Now here begins this, the second book, called the Winning
of Friends, of which this is the opening stanza:
Without resources or property, the intelligent and friendly-
minded soon gain their ends, like the crow, the tortoise, the
deer^ and the mouse. 1.
(2) The king’s sons said: “How was that?” Vi^ijuSarman
told this story:
(3) There was in the south-country a city named Mahilaropya.
(4) Not far from it was a great silk-cotton tree, with a mighty
trunk and numerous branches. (Birds came from all parts and
spent the night in it.) (5) And in it dwelt a crow named Light-
%ving. (6) Once he went out to get food early in the morning,
and saw coming near the tree a fowler of ferocious aspect;
(his fingers and toes were crackt and his body was shaggy;)
he carried a staff and a net in his hand, and seemed like Death’s
double. And when the crow saw him he was perturbed at heart
and thot: (7) “ What does this wretch mean to do? Is it I whom
he seeks to injure, or has he some other purpose?” So he
stayed there and watcht. (8) But the hunter came up to the
tree, spread out the net, scattered kernels of grain, and placed
himself in hiding not far away. (9) Now a dore-king named
Brightneck, with a following of a tliousand doves, as he was
flying around there in the air, spied those kernels. (10) He
succumbed to the temptation and flew down into the net to get
the food; and was caught by the meshes of cords, along with
his whole following. (11) But the hunter was delighted at this
sight and ran forward (brandishing his club). (12) Now Bright-
neck’s followers were fluttering about this way and that, and
were pulling the net in various directions with their beaks and
330
Book 11; Winning of Friends
feet; and (seeing this) Brightneck said to them: (13) “This is
a (great) disaster (that has fallen upon us). There is only one
means of safety in this case: we must all work in concord and
fly up (into the air) and go far away. Otherwise we cannot
carry off the net.” (14) And so they did (, hoping to save their
lives); they carried off the net and put behind them the distance
of an arrow-shot, flying upward into the heavens, and then set
off thru the air. (15) But the hunter, when he saw his net
carried off by the birds, thot: “ This is an unheard-of thing!
and he ran along with upturned face, thinking:
“ While these birds are united, to be sure, they can carry
off my net; but when they begin to disagree, then they will
come into my power.” 2,
(16) But when Brightneck saw him (, the cruel wretch,)
following, he began to go faster. (17) Lightwing for his part
gave up all thot of food and followed (hard) after the flock
of doves, moved by curiosity, and thinking: “What will this
wretch do about the doves?” (18) But Brightneck, realizing
the hunter’s purpose, said to his companions: “ This wretch of
a hunter is following us and has not given up hope. So the
best thing for us is simply to get out of his sight. We must
(fly up very high and) travel over rugged country, over hills
and woods,” (19) So the birds fl.ew out of sight (taking the
net with them). Then the hunter, perceiving that they had gone
out of his sights gave up hope and turned back. (20) But when
Brightneck saw that he had turned back, he said to them:
(21) “ (Look you, that wretch of a hunter has turned back. So)
it is better for us (also to turn back and) to go straight to
Mahilaropya. (22) (To the northeast of) there dwells a (dear)
friend of mine, a mouse named Goldy. (23) We will go to him
without delay; he will cut our bonds, (and he has the power)
to get us out of our trouble.” (24) “ Agreed,” they said; and
when they came near Goldy’s hole they flew down, (26) Now
the shrewd Goldy, fearing mishap, had made a hole with a
hundred openings, and was living in it. (26) (His heart) being
alarmed by the [noise of the] birds’ flight, Goldy stayed in
hiding. (27) But Brightneck went up to an entrance of the
hole and said: “Friend Goldy, come here, please.” (28) (And
hearing this) Goldy, still keeping well within (his hole-strong-
Framo Story: Dove, Grow, Mouse, Tortoise, and Deer
331
r
I
?
i
1
I
I
I
<
f
I
I
J
r
I
I
i
i
i
I
hold)^ said; “Who are you, Sir?” (29) The other said; “I am
Brightneck, your friend.” (30) But when he heard this, his
soul was greatly rejoist (so that his hair stood on end all over
his body), and in great excitement he went out, and saw
Brightneck with his followers hound in the thongs [of the net],
and said in dismay: (31) “My friend^ what does this mean?
Tell me (, tell me).” (32) Said he: “My friend, you are an
intelligent person; why do- you ask such a question? (It is said:)
Whencesoever, and by whatever means, and whenever, and
however, and whatever, and to whatever extent, and wherever^
a man does — be the deed good or evil; even thence, and by
that means, and then, and thus, and that, and to that extent,
and there — it comes back to him by the power of fate.” 3.
(33) Goldy said: “That is very true.
From a distance of a hundred and ten leagues a bird sees
here the carrion-flesh; that same bird, when its time arrives,
sees not the snare-thong. 4.
When I see how the moon and the sun are subject to eclipse;
and how elephants and serpents too are taken captive, and how
wise men are poverty-stricken; verily, mighty is Fate! is my
thot. 5.
Tho they roam only in the air, birds come to grief; fish are
caught by those who know how, even out of the deep water
of the sea. Of what account are good deeds or bad conduct in
this world, and what virtue is there in the attainment of good
standing? For Fate stretches forth its arm in calamity and
seizes even from afar.” 6.
(34) So speaking Goldy began to cut Brightneck’s thong.
(35) Brightneck said: “My friend, (do) not (do) so; first cut
the thong's of my followers, and afterwards mine.” (36) When
he had said this for the second and the third time, Goldy said
impatiently: (37) “ My friend, how is it that you devote yourself
to freeing others from distress, taking no account of your own? ”
(38) Said he: “ My friend, be not angry. All these (poor
wretches) have deserted other leaders and attacht themselves
to me. So how can I fail to show them so much consideration;
at least? (39) Now before you cut my thong, you will not be
too tired to cut theirs; wlxile if mine were cut first you might
perhaps become tired, sir; and that would not be right That
332
Book II: Winning of Friends
is why I spoke as I did*” (40) When he heard this Qoldy was
overjoyed, and said: “I made trial of you (in speaking thus);
[I see that] you are rightly credited with the qualities on which
dependants rely.
Inasmuch as you show compassion to your dependants and
readiness to share [the same lot] with them, by reason of this
your disposition you are fit to rule over the whole universe.” 7.
(41) So saying he cut all their thongs. (42) But Brightneck,
freed from his captivity, took leave of Goldy; and having
received his farewell greetings he flew up and went with his
following to his own home. Goldy (for his part) entered into his
stronghold. (43) But Lightwing, w^ho had seen all, how Bright-
neck was freed from captivity, was astonisht and reflected:
How wise this Goldy is, and how powerful and welhequipt
his stronghold! (44) Now it would be well for me also to make
friends with Goldy (, like Brightneck); for I (too) might get
caught in a net or suffer a like misfortune.” (45) With this
resolve he came down from the tree,- approacht the entrance
of the hole, and called Goldy by his name (, which he had
already learned): ^‘Friend Goldy (, come here, please)!” (46)
Hearing this Goldy (thot: Can it be that there is still some
other dove who is not wholly freed, and who is calling me by
name?” And he) said: “Who are you, Sir?” (47) Said he:
“ I am a crow named Lightwing.” (48) Hearing this Goldy lookt
Out from inside at the crow (who had come to the door of
his hole), and said: “Go away (from this place)!” (49) The
crow said: “ I saw how Brightneck was freed by your aid, and
I wish to be friends with you. (50) Such a calamity may pei*-
chance happen to me too, and then I may he set free by your
help. So you must (without fail) favor me with your friendship,
sir.” (51) Goldy said with a laugh; “ How can there be friend-
ship between you and me?
What can’t be done, can’t be done; only that which can he
done can he done, A wagon will hot go on water, nor a ship
on dry land. 8.
A wise man should try to join only things which can be
joined in this world. I am [your] food; you, sir, are [my]
eater; how shall there be friendship [between us]?” 9.
(52) The crow said:
Frame Story; Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise and Deer 333
Even if I ate you I should not get much food; while by
letting you live I might save my own life, even as Brightneck
did, noble sir. 10.
(53) Therefore it is not right that you, sir, should scorn my
request.
Trust may be placed even in beasts, and an alliance with
them resolved upon, if they are righteous, by reason of their
good character, as with you and Brightneck. 11.
The soul of a righteous person, even tbo he be offended,
does not suffer change; for the water of the ocean cannot be
heated with a torch of straw. 12,
Your noble qualities spread themselves abroad even without
being celebrated; fragrant jasmine, even when covered up, yet
exhales perfume.’^ 13.
(54) (Hearing this) Goldy said: (Sir,) you are fickle (by
your very nature. And it is said);
The fickle person is not faithful to himself; how can be be
faithful to others? Therefore the fickle person is sure to ruin
all undei’takings. 14.
(55) (Therefore leave this place, where you are blocking my
stronghold),” (56) Said he: “(Friend,) why these (harsh words
about fickle and not fickle) ? (I have been so attracted by your
excellent qualities, sir, that) I must without fail make friends
with you (; this is my firm resolve).” (57) Goldy said: “Why,
how can I make friends with you who are my enemy? And
it is said;
One should by no means make an alliance with an enemy,
even tho the bond he very close; water, tho heated very hot,
still puts out fire.” 15.
(58) The crow said ; “ Why, I never so much as saw you
before; how can I be your enemy? So why talk nonsense?”
(59) (Then) Goldy (smiled and) said: “ My dear sir, you must
know that there are two kinds of enmity in this world, as the
books explain, natural and casual. And you are my natural
enemy.” The crow said: “Well, I should like to hear the
distinguishing marks of the two kinds of enmity. (So tell me.) ”
Said he: “Well, casual enmity is produced by a specific cause,
and it is removed by an act of kindness suited to the cause;
while innate enmity, on the other hand, is never removed by
334
Book II: Winning of Friends
any means. (And) this innate enmity, again, is of two kinds,
one-sided enmity and mutual enmity.” The crow said: ‘‘What
is the distinction between them?” Said be: “If either may
slay the other and eitlier may be devoured by the other, that
is mutual enmity, because the injury is mutual; as in the case
of the lion and the elephant. But if one slays and devours [the
other] for no previous cause, and the other does him no injury,
harms him not and devours him not, that is one-sided enmity,
due to no cause; as in the case of (the horse and the buffalo,)
the cat and the mouse, the serpent and the mongoose. What
injury does (the horse do to the buffalo, or) tlie serpent (do)
to the mongoose, or the mouse to the cat? — So why speak of
making an alliance which is utterly impossible? Moreover:
‘He is my friend,’ you say? What reliance can you place
in an evil man for that reason ? ^ I have done a great deal for
— that is of no avail. ‘ He is a kinsman’ — that is a thread-
bare tale. For people are controlled by the merest bit of coin.
16. (And again:)
Thp lie may have been cherisht and favored with many
benefits, dearly loved, and saved from countless mishaps, because
of his evil nature an unrighteous man does not beget the smallest
particle of confidence; he is like a snake sleeping in one’s
bosom. 17.
If a man, even with a great store of wealth,^ puts trust in
enemies, or in a wife that has no affection for him, his life is
ended then and there. 18.
But one who is willing to make an alliance again with a
friend that has once proved false, receives death unto himself,
as a^she-mule that receives the seed.^ 19.
It is no cause for trust that you have given no offence. For
malicious men are a source of danger even to the noble.” 20.
(60) The crow said: “ I have heard all that. But nevertheless
I am going to make friends with you wholesouledly. (And this
is possible.) For it is said:
^ That is, according to Hertel, even if he showers wealth upon them.
But perhaps rather, even if he be very well provided with worldly goods,
which would make his fall the less to be expected.
2 The traditional Hindu belief is that she-mules c.an foal, but at the cost
of their lives.
Frame Story: Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise, and Deer
335
Union of all metals results from tlieir melting, of beasts and
birds from a specific cause, of fools from fear and avarice,
[but] of the righteous from mere sight [of one another], 21.
(How then?)
Like an earthen vessel a base man is easily sundered and
hard to put together, but a righteous man is like a golden
vessel; hard to sunder, but easy to put together. 22,
(61) Whom else than you, sir, could I find markt by these
virtues? So it is fitting, in spite of what you say, that you
should unite with me. If you do not, I will starve myself to
death at your door.” (62) (Hearing this) Qoldy said: ^^You
have convinst me; (so) be it as you wish. (63) But 1 spoke
as I did (to test your disposition,) so that, if now you should
slay me, at least you might not think that I was a fool and
that you had got the better of me by cleverness of wit. (Since
I' have proved this to you,) now my head is in your lap.”
(64) So saying he began to come out; but when he had come
out only a little, (half way,) he stopt again. (66) (Then) the
crow said: (My friend,) is there even yet something that
makes you distrust me, so that you do not come out of your
stronghold?” (66) Said he: “(I have something that I must
say.) For in this world people live either according to the
heart or with an eye to profit. (These two are opposed to
each other.) Union with the heart is advantageous; but not
[union for] profit, A man may offer abundant sesame-grains
to partridges, but he does it in order to destroy them; is that
meant as a favor to them? Is it not rather to slay them utterly?
Benefit is no proof of friendship, nor is injury a sure sign
of enmity. The only determining factor in this case is the
heart — whether it is good or evil. 23.
(67) Now that I have come to know your heart I have no
fear of you. But yet some other friend of yours naight per-
chance destroy me while I am off my guard.” (To which) the
other replied : I
“ A friend that is acquired by destroying a virtuous friend
— him one should cast out, like millet that chokes the hills of
rice.” 24,
(68) And hearing this [Goldy] (quickly) came out, and they
(respectfully) greeted each other.
336
Book II : Winning of Friends
FormiDg a friendship close and insepai’able as the nails and
the flesh [of the fingers], the mouse and the crow entered into
an alliance, recognizing the same friends and foes. 25.
(69) They stayed there some time; and after Goldy had
entertained the crow with food, he took leave of him, and
entered his home; and the crow too went his way, (70) But
Lightwing went into a (certain) forest thicket and saw there
a wild buffalo that had been killed by a tiger; and (when he
had eaten as much as he pleased on the spot,) he took a piece
of the meat and went (straight) to Goldy, and called to him:
“(Oome here, come here, friend Goldy,) eat this meat that I
have brought you.” (71) And Goldy too had diligently pre-
pared a (very) large heap of (huskt) millet-kernels for the
crow, and he said: ^^My friend, eat these kernels, which I
have gathered for you by my own efforts,” (72) (And) then,
tho both had eaten enuf, each ate [what was offered] to show
his love for the other. And day by day they spent their time in
friendship (such as the world rarely sees, exchanging courteous
inquiries and talking confidentially with each other), (73) Now
once npon a time the crow came and said to Goldy: (74)
‘‘Friend (Goldy), I am leaving this place and going elsewhere,”
(Said he: ^‘Friend, what for?” The other replied’: “Because
I am tired of this life.” Goldy replied: “‘Why so? ” Said he:)
(75) “ Every day I have to get nourishment for my beak; and
we birds are in terror of being caught in nets, a mishap which
we see happening ever and anon. So I am done with this
manner of living.” (Goldy said: “ Then whither will yon go?”
He replied:) (76) “Not far from here, in a forest (thicket),
there is a large lake. There dwells a dear friend of mine^ a
tortoise named Sluggish (, whose friendship I won long ago),
(77) And he will support me with fish and other dainty foods;
I shall pass the time with him in comfort, undisturbed,” (78)
Hearing this Goldy said: “I too will go with you, sir; I too
am tired of life in this place.” (79) Said the crow: “And why
are you tired of life?” (80) Goldy said: “(Well,) it is a long
story; after we have come to that place, I will tell (you all
of) it.” (81) While he was yet speaking the crow pickt up his
friend in his beak and carried him to (that) large lake, (82)
Now Sluggish saw (from a distance) the crow approaching
Frame Story: Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise, and Deer
337
(with the mouse). Being prudent,^ he wondered who it was,
and, to be on the safe side, (jumpt off from the shore and)
dived into the water. (83) Lightwing in turn was frightened
by the splash in the water, and (wondering what it meant) he
set Goldy down again on the beach and flew up into a (large)
tree (to reconnoitre). And (perching on the tree) he said:- (84)
(Ho,) Sluggish, come here (, come here) ! I am your friend
the crow (named Lightwing), and I have come here eager [to
see you] after this long absence. So come and embrace me.”
(85) When Sluggish heard this and understood what it meant,
(his flesh bristled with joy and his eyes were suffused with
glad tears. And) he came out quickly from the water^ saying:
‘^Forgive my offense that I did not know you.” And he
embraced Lightwing, who came down from the tree. (86)
And after he had joyfully offered hospitality to both of them,
he askt the crow: “(Comrade,) whence do you come? How
is it that you have come with a mouse to an uninhabited
forest? And who is this mouse?” (87) The crow said:
(Comrade,) this mouse is named Goldy. Only one who
had a thousand tongues could descrihe (in due fashion) the
extent of his virtues— -blessings on him! (And well has this
been said:)
Is it not characteristic of the noble that their affections last
till the end of their lives, that their anger is gone in a moment,
and that their generous deeds are quite unselfish?” 26.
(88) So saying he told (him) the w^hole story of Briglitneck s
liberation and of his own alliance with the mouse. (89) But
when Sluggish heard this praise of Goldy’s good qualities, he
was astonisht, and askt Goldy: ‘"'(Now) why did you become
so tired of life, (or what manner of ill-usage did you suffer,)
that you were moved to abanbon your native land (and your
friends, kinsmen, and spouse)?” (90) The crow said: “I too
askt him this very question before; (but) he said the story was
too long and he would tell it (when he arrived) at this place;
(and he has not [yet] told it even to me.) So now, friend
Goldy, tell us (both together why you became tired of life).”
(Then) Goldy told his story:
® Literally, “ knowing times and places
Edgerton, Ta&catantra. IL 22
338
Book II; Winning of Friends
STORY 1: MOUSE AND TWO MONKS
(91) (In tke south country) there is a city named Mahilaropya.
Not far from it is a monlii’s hermitage, and in it dwelt a monk
named Tuft-ear. (92) And at begging-time he was wont to get
his alni'S-bowl filled from that cily with yarious dainties (, con-
taining dried sugar and molasses and pomegranates, and delicious
with sticky substances). Tlien he would return to his hermitage
and, having (formally) broken his fast, would put away the
food that was left from the meaH (carefully concealed} in his
alms-bowl for his servants who came in the morning, and
would hang this (alms-bowl) on a wall-peg and go to sleep
(when night came), (93) And I would jump up every day and
cat that food; and I and my followers lived on it, (94) The
monk was in despair because I kept eating it, however care-
fully he put it away. In his dread of me he kept moving it
from one place to another and yet higher place; but in spite
of all I had no trouble in getting it and eating it, (95) Now
(while this was going on, after some time) it happened that
a (dear) friend of his, a monk named Fat-paunch,^ came to
him (to be his guest). (96) Tuft-ear received him with the
proper forms of welcome; and when he had performed religious
rites in due fashion,® (97) (then) in the evening he sat on his
couch and askt Fat-paunch, who had gone to bed : Since
the time when you and I parted, sir, what various regions, or
penance-groves have you wandered thru?’^ (98) The other
began his story; “It was on the festival of the full moon of
the month Karttika, when we had been bathing at the exalted
pilgrimage-place of Puskara, that I was parted from you because
of the great crowd of people. After that I wandered all np
and down the Ganges, to Hardwar, Allahabad, Benares, and
other [places of pilgrimage]; in short, I visited the whole earth,
^ This was a violation of the rules for monks, who were forbidden , to
accept more food than they could eat at the time. Both monks in this story
are represented thruout as hypocrites; compare the next two notes,
° Literally, Big-buttocks
® Either this is an ironical expression for after they had eaten a hearty
meal” (monks were supposed to eat very little and very simply); or else
(as indicated by certain versions) the original may have contained a phrase
of that meaning, instead of the phrase translated above.
Story 1: Muuae and two Monks. — Story 2: Huskt for bnskt Sefiame 339
from sea to sea.” (99) And while ho was in the midst of the
story, Tuft-ear kept constantly striking the alms-bowl with
a split-bamboo stick and making it ring, to frighten me away.
(100) This interfered with the telling of the story, so that Fat-
paunch was angered and said; (101) ” I am doing you a courtesy
by telling you my story, sir; why are you so discourteous (and
apparently insolent) as to seem bored with my tale and to fix
your mind on something else?” (102) Tuft-ear (was embarrast
and) said: ^‘My friend, do not be angry; I am not bored; but
look, this mouse, my enemy, is always jumping up and reaching
my alms-bowl, no matter how high I hang it, and he eats the
remains of the alms in it. (And I cannot prevent him in any
way.) (103) I keep striking the alms-bowl ever and anon with
this split bamboo to frighten away that mouse; that is the
only reason.” (104) Said he; ^^Is this the only mouse here, or
are there other mice too? ” (105) He replied: “ I do not trouble
about other mice; it is just this one scoundi^el that is forever
tricking me, like a sorcerer.” (106) (Hearing this) the other
replied: “Such power does not belong to a mere mouse; (no,)
tliere must be some reason for this. (And it is said:)
Not for nothing does Mother ^Endih trade sesame for
sesame, huskt for likewise huskt; there must be some reason for
this.” 27.
(107) Tuft-ear said: “And how was that?” Said he:
STORY 2: HUSKT FOR HUSKT SESAME
(108) Once when the rainy-season was at hand, I entreated
lodging of a brahman in a certain town (, that I might get a
fixt home).'^ And I abode in his house. (109) Now one day I
awoke towards morning and heard the brahman and his wife
talking behind their screen; and I listened to what they said.
The brahman was saying: (110) “(Wife,) tomorrow will be a
day of the moon's change; so do you offer hospitality to brah-
mans, to the best of our ability.” (Ill) She replied (in a very
shrewish tone of voice): “How can you entertain brahmans,
when you are so hopelessly poor! ” (112) When she said this
to him, (he felt as if he were plunged into a well, and had
^ During- the rains, when wandering is not customary.
22*
340
Book II; Winning of Friends
n6t a word to say. But after along pause) he replied: “Wife,
you should not say that. (Even poor people should, at proper
seasons, give something, be it little or much, to worthy persons.
And it is said:)
Always be thrifty, but do not be too thrifty. Because he was
too thrifty, the jackal was killed by the bow,’’ 28.
(113) Said she: “(And) how was that?” He replied:
STORY 3: TOO GREEDY JACKAL
(114) In a certain place there was a hunter who Ih^ed on
flesh. And he arose early one morning, fitted on arrow [to his
bow], and set out for the woods to hunt. (115) Very soon he
slew a deer and took (the fllesh of) it and turned homeward.
(116) (As he was coming down a steep bank to a ford,) he
saw a boar as big as a young buffalo, with uplifted tusk (, his
body smeared with lumps of mud). (IH) When he saw it he
was frightened (by reason of the evil omen), and turned back,
but found the way blockt by the boar; so he threw on the
ground the (deer’s) flesh (rolled up in a bundle), (118) drew
his bow, and shot at him an arrow (smeared with poison),
which (pierst his neck and) went thru to the. other side. (119)
But the boar, tho stunned by the wound, roused himself to a
last furious attack and wounded the hunter in the entrails so
severely that he gave up the ghost, and fell (on the ground,
his body torn in three parts. Then, having killed the hxmter,
tho boar also was overcome by the pain of the arrow-wound,
and died), (120) Shortly after this a jackal named Longhowl,
his belly lean with hunger, a.s he wandered about in search of
food, came to that place and saw the deer, the hunter, and
the boar (dead). (121) And when he saw them he was overjoyed
and thot: “(Ha!) Fate is kind to me; it has given me all this
unexpected food, (122) I will eat it in such a way that I may
live on it a long time.
Since food and drink are not always available for mortals,
when one has got a generous supply of provender, he should
make use of it little by little. 29.
(123) So first I shall (put by the deer, the boar, and the
hunter in a pile, and) eat this sinew-cord on the tip of the
Story 3: Two greedy Jackal- — Story 2.— Story 1 : Mouse and two Monks 341
bow.” (124) So saying he took the cord of the bow in his
mouth and began to eat (the sinew). (125) (Whereupon) as the
cord was severed he was pierst (by the bow) in the throat,®
and perisht.
(End of Story 8)
(126) Therefore I say: ‘‘Always be thrifty” &c. (127) (And
hearing this) the brahman’s wife said: “(Well then,) I have a
bit of sesame and a little rice; (128) do you get up early in
the morning and go to the woods and get firewood and huia^
grass and the other things needed, and I (along with this pupil
[of yours], Kamandald,) will prepare a gruel for three brahmans.”
(129) So in the morning she huskt the sesame and spread it
out in the sunlight, setting Kamandaki in charge of it and
telling him to watch it. (130) Thereupon, while she was busy
with household duties, (Kamandaki failed to pay attention, and)
a dog came and nibbled at the sesame and defiled^ it. (131)
Seeing this she said: “Kamandaki, this is a bad thing that has
happened; it will keep us from entertaining the brahmans.
(132) But after all — go you and exchange this sesame (, huskt
as it is,) for black sesame, and come back (quickly; I will
make a black gruel instead).” (133) This was done, and
Kamandaki came to the very same house which I had entered
to beg alms, and tried to exchange the sesame (saying: “Take
this sesame! ”). (134) While the trade was in process, the master
of the house came in, and said: “On what terms are you
trading this sesame?” She said to him: “I have got sesame
of^equal value, white for black.” Then he (smiled and) said:
“There must be some reason for this.” Therefore I say: “Not
for nothing does Mother &c.
(End of Story 2)
(135) When the monk had told this story he said: “Tuft-
ear, in this case too there must be some reason why this mouse
has such irresistible power and can eat the alms [-food]. (136)
® Literally palate^’ (some versions read mouth”, ‘*neek”, “breast”,
“heart ”).
® The sesame was defiled because it had been toucht by a dog, an unclean
animal. See Addenrla et Corrigenda to Volume I.
342
Boolt lit Wintiiag of Friends
Have you perchance a spade?” Said he: Certainly I have
here is one all made of iron, with a fine handle).” (137) And
when it was brought to him he (tied on his girdle and set his
lips firmly and) demanded: ‘‘By what way does he come?”
And being told this he started to dig up my hole (with the
spade), (138) Now at the very beginning I had overheard their
private talk and, being curious, I had stopt to listen (, giving
up all thot of food). (139) But when he began to search out
my stronghold, then I realized: “This villain has discovered
the entrance to my hole.” (140) I had got possession of some
gold that had been placed there long ago (by a usurer), and
by its power I felt myself strong. (141) But that villain traced
the way to my hole and found the money and took it, and
returned to the hermitage, and said to Tuft-ear: “This, priest,
is that gold of his; it is by the power of this^® that he jumps
up even to an [otherwise] impossible place.” And they divided
it half and half and sat down and took their ease. (142)
Having suffered this disaster I thot: “If perchance they should
make a light while I am here, they would surely catch me
and kill me.” So I left that place and located my stronghold
elsewhei'e. (143) And the other [mice], who were my followers,
came and said to me: “Sir Qoldy, we that live with you are
grievously hungry; we have not a single bite of anything to
eat; even at the end of the day we have not found anything.
So be good enuf to get us something to eat this very day.”
(144) I agrded, and went with them to the hermitage. (145)
Then Tuft-ear heard the noise of my followers, and once more
he began to strike the alms-bowl with the split-bamboo stfck.
(146) His friend said to him: “The mouse is undone now;
why do you keep swinging your stick from time to time even
yet? (Stop it; have done!)” (147) (Then) the monk replied:
“My friend, this .mouse, my enemy, keeps coming back again
and again. (148) (For fear of him I am doing so.)” Then the
guest smiled and said:* “(Friend,) be not afraid, his power of
jumping up- has departed along with his money. (For) this is
the unvarying rule with all living beings.” (149) Now when I
heard this (I was enraged, and) I jumpt with all my might in
Or, with the reading parentheti^ed in the text, *‘it is just by the power
of his licart.”
Story 1 : Mouse and two Monks
343
the direction of the alms-bowl; but nevertheless I failed to
reach it, and fell to the ground. Then he, my enemy, seeing
me, (laught and) said to Tuft*ear: “(See, my friend, see! 'Tis
a sight woi’th seeing. For it is said;)
By wealth it is that every man becomes powerful, and by
wealth he becomes learned; behold how this villain of a mouse
has become like his own kind again, 30.
(150) (So sleep undisturbed;) the cause of his power of jump-
ing up has past into our hands (alone).” (151) Hearing this I
reflected (in my heart): ’^‘It is the truth that he has spoken.
(For now) my power is diminisht (and my courage and vigor
are lost), and even to get my food I have not the power to
jump up (so much as a finger’s length).” (152) And I beard
how my followers were murmuring to each other: “Come, let
us depart; this fellow cannot even support his own belly, to say
nothing of other people’s. (So what is the use of waiting on him?) ”
(153) (Then I went to my own abode, thinking “So far it has
gone! ” And in the morning) every one of them went over to my
rivals (, saying “That fellow is poor!”). That was the way my
followers behaved; not one of them came to see me. And when I
lookt, those same followers of mine, seeing me before their very
eyes, 'were playing with my rivals, shouting cheerfully to each
other and clapping their hands. And I reflected: “So it goes!
He who has money has friends; he who has money has
kinsmen; he who has money is a man in the world; and he
who has money is a scholar. 31. (And again:)
When a man is stript of wealth, and his understanding is
weak, all his undertakings fail, like little brooks in summer. 32.
When a man is deprived of money, his friends desert him,
and his sons, and his wife, and his brothers. When he gets
rich, back they come to him again. For money is a man’s [only]
kinsman in this world. 33.
Empty is the house of a man without a son; empty is the
heart of a man who has not a faithful friend; empty are [all]
quarters for a fool; everything is empty for a poor man. 34.
^e has the same faculties unimpaired, the same name, tlie
same mind uninjured, the same voice; he is the same man, and
yet, when lie loses the radiance of wealth, he suddenly becomes
anotlier: a curious thing is this. 35.
344
Book U: Winning' of Friends
(154) (So what now would it be best for me to do, in my
present plight?) Since (the fruit of my past deeds has turned
out thus, and) I have lost my money, it is by all means best
for me to stay no longer in this place. (And it is said:)
Let a man dwell in a place that is honorable, and not cleave
to one that is dishonorable. Let him shun even a celestial
palace in association with gods, if it be not honorable.” 36.
(155) (But after saying this I reflected further as follows:)
‘‘ Shall I then beg for alms of some one? Nay, that would be
worse yet; it would mean the life of a beggar. For:
A crooked tree that grows in salty earth, gnawed by worms,
its bark stript off by a forest fire, — even its existence is better
than a beggar’s. 37.
Stammering in the throat, sweat on the countenance, pallor
and trembling — the same signs that mark a dying man mark
also a beggar. 38.
It is the home of wretchedness; it steals away the mind; it
breeds false suspicions; it is a synonym of death, the dwelling-
place of misery, the chief store-house o£ apprehensions; it is
insignificance incarnate, the seat of disasters, and robs the
proud of their dignity; all this is what the beggar’s estate
means for the wise, I cannot see that it is anything else than
hell 39. And again:
Without wealth a man becomes diffident; afflicted with diffi-
dence, he loses his dignity; without dignity, he is ill-used; from
ill-usage he comes to despair; despairing, he becomes a prey
to anguish; if his soul is in anguish his mind gives way; when
his mind is gone he goes to ruin. Behold, poverty is the source
of all woes! 40, Likewise:
Better to thrust both hands into the enraged jaws of a serpent;
better also to drink poison and go to sleep in the house of
Death; better to throw oneself down from the brow of a lofty
mountain and be dasht in a hundred pieces — than to make
oneself comfortable on money begged from base men. 41.
It is better that a man who has lost his means should feed
the fire with his life, than to beg of a mean and churlish
man. 42.
Vimana: the word is also, punningly, understood as meaning ‘backing
in honor” (vii-muna).
Story 1: Motise and two Monks
345
(156) (And) now, since things hare conae to such a pass,
by what (other) means could I possibly keep alive? By theft
perhaps? But that also is worse yet, for it means taking the
goods of another. Because:
Better to keep silence than to speak a word that is false;
better to be a eunuch than to go after another’s wife; better
to give up the breath of life than to take delight in slander;
better to live on alms than to enjoy goods stolen from others. 43.
(157) Then shall I support myself by the doles of charity?
That would be terrible; that also is a second gate of death. (For:)
For a sick man, for one in long exile, for one who eats
another’s bread, and for one who sleeps in another’s house, to
be alive is death, and death for them is rest. 44.
(158) Therefore it is clear that I must get back that same
money (which Pat-paunch stole). For I saw how those two
scoundrels put the casket of money under their pillow. I will
bring that wealth back to my own stronghold, so that I may
once more get the sovereignty that was formerly mine, by the
marvelous power of the money.” (159) (And) so thinking I went
there in the night, and while he was sound asleep I (crept up
and) made a hole in the casket. (160) But just then the monk
awoke, and straightw^ay ho hit me on the head with his stick
(of split-bamboo). (161) With a remnant of my life left, I made
shift to get away (and returned to my hole) without being
killed. (162) Yet once more, after a long time, my hopes revived
and I took courage and crept up near the dinars; but he struck
me such a merciless blow on the head with his club that to
this very day I shudder at the sight of such people even in
dreams. And see this wound on my head, which was made at
that time! And this is well said:
When a man gets into a dire calamity, so that he runs a
risk of losing his life outright, in the face of present danger
he will know nothing of hateful riches, and longs [only] for
his life. But when he is saved, then for the sake of riches he
once more rushes into another calamity. In tlieir eagerness for
life and wealth, men hazard each for the sake of the other. 45.
(163) After many reflections of this sort I decided to let that
wealth of mine go, and I ceast from my thirst for it. And this
is well said:
346
Book II: Winning of Friends
Knowledge is the true organ of sight, not the eye. Righteousness
is true nobility, not birth in a noble family. Contentment is time
prosperity. True wisdom consists in desisting from what cannot
be accomplisht. 46.
All fortune belongs to him who has a contented mind. Surely
the whole earth is covered with leather for him whose feet are
encased in shoes. 47.
The joy of those whose minds are at peace, because they
have drunk their fill of the nectar of contentment, is far beyond
the reach of tliose who are ever rushing hither and yon in their
greed for gold. 48.
A hundred leagues is not far to a man who is driven by
cupidity; but the contented man pays no heed to money that
comes into his very hand. 49.
(164) So since wealth is unattainable by any means, discernment
is (really) the best course. And it is said:
What is religion? Compassion for all living creatures. What
is happiness for people in this world? Good health. What is
affection? A kind disposition. What is wisdom? Discern-
ment. 50.
(165) So thinking I came into an uninhabited forest. There
I saw Brightneck caught in a net; and after I had set him free
as you have heard, (by the grace of my acquired merit)
Lightwing here favored me with his friendly attentions. And
some time after this he (, Lightwing,) came to me and askt
me to come hither. And so I came, (along) with him, to visit
you. (So this was why I became weary of life. Moreover:)
The entire threefold universe, including deer, serpents, and
antelopes, gods, demons, and men— all alike live [just] by taking
nourishment before midday. 51.
Whether he be a conqueror of the whole earth, or whether
he have sunk to a degraded condition — a man who would
eat must, when tlie time comes, get his little measure of
rice. 52.
What intelligent man, pray, would do an odious act for the
sake of this [body, or life], when the outcome of it [the body,
or life] is evil, has a base end, and comes to naugbt? 53.
(End of Story 1)
Story 1: Mouse and two Monks.— Frame Story: Dove, Crow, &c. 347
(166) (And) hearing this Sluggish spoke encouragingly to
him: “ My friend, he not perturbed because you have left your
own country. (You are wise; why let your mind bo troubled?
Moreover:)
People may remain fools even after studying the books of
learning. But the truly wise man is he who acts [according to
what he has learned]. For a sick man may ponder the name
of a healing remedy as much as he likes; but does that alone
make him well? 54.
It a man is afraid to be resolute, for him the acquisition of
knowledge has not the least effect. For tho a blind man may hold
a lamp in the palm of his hand, does it do him any good? 55.
In the revolutions of fortune men who have given [alms]
become beggars; men that have slain are slain themselves; and
men that have tormented others are tormented. 56.
(167) (So, my friend, live your life here in [this] more
desirable estate.) And (moreover) have no such thots as this:
Teeth, hair, nails, and men are of no account when removed
from their native places. A wise man should know this and
not abandon his native place. 57.
(168) (Now) such is the practice of base men. (For to the noble
there is no difference between a native and a foreign land.) Since:
What can be called the native land, or what a foreign country,
for a man who is steadfast and wise? Whatsoever land he lingers
in, even that he makes his own by the power of his arm.
Whatever forest a lion penetrates with the furious blows of his
teeth, claws, and tail — even there he slakes his thirst on the
blood of the noble elephants he slays. 58.
(169) Accordingly, my friend, you should always be sti*enuous,
knowing that wealth and enjoyments never depart from the
strenuous. (And ag‘ain:)
Like frogs to a pond, like fish to a full lake, so to the
strenuous man come of themselves both helpers and money. 59.
Be a man energetic, prompt to act, skillful in performance,
free from vices, bold, grateful for favors, firm in friendship, —
then Fortune herself seeks him out to dwell with him. 60.
Be a man irresolute, slothful, relying on fate, and without
manly courage, — then Fortune is unwilling to embrace him,
as a charming woman her aged spouse. 61.
348
Book lit Winnm^ of Friends
(If capable of energetic action, a man can acquire wealth in
this world, even tho^he be foolish. No respect is paid to a man
whose energy fails him, even if he have a mind like Brhaspati’s.^®
62.)
(170) Tho yon have lost your riches, Sir, yon are gifted
with insight and energy (and power; so that yon are not to
be compared with an ordinary mortal). How then?
Even without riches a resolute man attains a place of high
honor and distinction, whereas a weakling, tho surrounded with
riches, falls to a place of contempt. A dog may put on a golden
collar, but he does not thereby attain the majesty of a lion;
for that is born of native endowment and increases thru the
acquisition of a mass of noble qualities. 63.
He who abounds in valor and resolution, and has energy
and power as well, and who thinks always of the ocean as no
more than a tiny puddle and the prince of mountains [Himalaya]
as no more than the peak of an anthill, —to him Fortune comes
willingly, but not to the faint-hearted. 64.
Meru^s peak is not too high, nor hell too deep, nor the vast
ocean too boundless, for men who are seconded by firm re-
solve. 65.
Why exult in the thot that you, have wealth, or why be cast
down at the loss thereof? The nps and downs of men are like
a [bouncing] ball that is struck with the hand. 66.
(171) (Now youth and wealth are quite as fleeting as bubbles
in the water. Since:)
The shadow of a cloud, the frieudship of a scoundrel, young
corn, and maidens, can he enjoyed hut for a brief space; and
so with youth and wealtli, 67.
(172) So, friend (Goldy), you should realize this and not he
distrest, even tlio robbed of your wealth. (And it is said;)
What is not to he, that will not he; what is to he, that
cannot be otherwise. This antidote that destroys the poison of
care — why not drink it? 68.
(173) Therefore dwell in freedom from all care for your
livelihood.
He who made swans white, parrots yellow, and peacocks
varicolored — he will provide for your life. 69.
Precejitor (*f tlie gods and g^od of wisdom.
Frame Story: Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise, and Deer
349
A man should never mourn for his riches when he has fallen
on adversity; nor yet should he give vent to rejoicing when
he has come upon good fortune. For the results that develop
in accordance with men^s past deeds inevitably come to them,
be they good or bad. 70.
Every day the pure in heart should perform at least a small
pious act, — a religious observance, vow, or fast For deatli is
ever ready to fall upon the lives of creatures, however they
may strive [to avoid it]. 71.
There is no other treasure like charity; what happiness is
like contentment? Where is an adornment like good character?
And there is no profit on earth like health. 72.
(174) In short (then), this dwelling is your own; (be of good
cheer and unafraid, and) spend your time (here) right with me in
loving affection.” (175) And when Lightwing heard the words
of Sluggish, so full of the essence of all wisdom, his face
beamed with satisfaction and he said: (176) “Friend Sluggish,
you are rightly credited with the qualities on which dependants
rely. For by this protection which you have afforded Goldy
you have given the greatest satisfaction to my heart. (What
wonder is there in this? It is said:)
When dear friends are joined with dear friends and their
joy and delight are mutual, it is they who drink the cream of
happiness; it is they who really live, and they who arc truly
noble. 73.
Tho their station be exalted, yet are they poor, and their
labors are vain, those who make [their own] lives their sole object,
whose hearts are so seduced by cupidity tliat they fail to make
their fortunes, freely offered, the adornment of their friends. 74.
It is only the noble who are ever able to rescue the' noble
from distress. It is only elephants that can be harnest to the
task of pulling out elephants that are sunk in a bog. 75.
Give protection always to the righteous, even at the risk of
your life. For only in doing good to others do the. fortunate find
profit in bodily existence. 76.
Among all men on earth he alone is praiseworthy, and he
only has completed the whole duty of righteous men, from
whom neither beggars nor suppliants depart disappointed, failing
of their desires,” 77.
S50
Book Winning of Friends
(177) Now wkile they, were conversing thus a deer named
Dapple“l)ody, frightened ,by hmhters and thirsty, came to that
(large) pool. (178) (And) when they sw him; coming their
hearts were greatly alarmed, and they; started to rnia ayray.
Panting for a drink, the deer came swiftly down into Hie water:
and hearing the splash of it, (179) Sluggish dived (liastily from
the hank) into the water, (180) Goldy too (wa^ frightened and)
ran into a hole (in a tree-stump). (181) And Lightwfng (flew
up to find out what it meant, and) alighted on a (tall) tree^
(182) But Dapple-hody stopt still on the very edge of the pond,
in fear for his life. (183) Then Lightwing flew up in the air
and lookt over the ground all around for the distance of a
league, and alighted on the tree (again), (184) and said to
Sluggish: “Come back, come back, there is no danger to you
from any quarter. (I have lookt around, and there is nothing
but a gi'ass-eating deer that has coine to the pond to get a
drink.) ” (185) At those words (the prudent Sluggish came out
again, and) all three of them (, being reassured,) returned to
the same spot, (186) Then Sluggish said (hospitably) to the
deer: “ Friend, drink (and bathe in) the water to your heart’s
content, And when you are refresht, come back here.” (187)
(When he heard these words) Dapple-body reflected: “ There
is no danger at all to me from these creatures, because a
tortoise, as everyone knows, can do nothing out of the water,
while tlie mouse and the crow eat only dead flesh, and only
tiny bodies at that. So I will go with them.” (188) With these
thots he joined them. (And) Sluggish said to Dapple-body, after
he had welcomed him and otherwise treated him civilly: ‘^May
good luck be yours, sir, (Tell us,) how did you come to this
hidden place in the woods? ” (,189) (To which) the other replied:
I am tired of the grievous roaming life I have been leading.
(Horsemen, dogs, and) hunters headed me off from this way
and that, and I was frightened, and (ran as fast as I could
and outstript them all and) came hither (looking for a drink).
Now I should like to make friends with you.” (190) (When)
Sluggish (heard this he) said: “ My friend, be not afraid. This
house is your own. Dwell here to your heart’s content, free
from annoyance.” (191) Thenceforth tliey all spent the time in
loving converse with each other, each doing as he listed; every
Frame Story: Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise, and Deer
351
day (at noon-time), after they had eaten, they would meet in
the shade of a large tree and would engage in earnest discussion
of various learned topics, (192) But one day Dapple-body failed
to arrive at the customary hour. (193) (And when they did
not see him^) their hearts were troubled (by an evil omen which
just then occurred,) and they suspected that some accident had
happened to him, and they could not feel easy,. (194) Then
Sluggish said to Lightwing; “ (You are an expert in this business,
because your powers are suited to it. So) fly up and find out
what has happened to Dapple-body.” (195) At these words
Lightwing flew up; and before he had gone far he saw Dapplc-
body at a place tliat led down to water, bound by a strong
leather strap attacht to a stake, (196) And (coming up) he
said to him (sadly): (My friend,) how comes it that you
have fallen into such a plight? ” (197) Dapple-body said; (My
friend,) this is no time for reproaches; (it is clear that this
threatens my death. So do not delay; because [while] you are
a capable person, sir, you are not skilled at cutting thongs.)
So go quickly and bring Goldy, and he will be able to cut
this thong (with ease).” (198) Lightwing (, saying So be it,”)
went back to Sluggish and Goldy, and told them of Dapple-
body’s captivity, (199) (and urged [Goldy] to loose Dapple-body’s
thong,) (200) and (right) speedily brought Goldy there. (201)
(When he saw Dapple-body in such a state,) Goldy (was greatly
clistrest and) said to him ; Comrade, you have the eye of
wisdom; how did you get into this plight? ” (202) Said he:
“ Comrade, why do you ask that? (You know that) fate is all-
powerful. And it is said;
What can even a man of shining wisdom do in the face of
that great ocean of calamities, Death [Fate]? Who can hold
in check Him who, unseen, can fall upon each and every man,
either by nigbt or in broad day? 78. (And again;)
(Even the minds of the wise go bowed down [like cripples],
when held captive by Death’s thongs and when their judgment
is smitten by Fate, 79.)
(203) So (my noble friend, since you know the pranks that
Fate plays, do you quickly) cut this thong, before the (cruel)
hunter comes.” (204) (Thus addrest) Goldy said: (Friend, do
not fear,) while I am at your side there is no danger from
352 Bqpk II: Ayioning’ of Friends
tHe kiahter. (Btit I am, asking keGanse I am curious to know
lioi^ you were trickt^; since you are always wary in your
actions.)” (205) Said he: “(If you are determined to hoar it,
then hear how) altho I have already known (the bitterness oE)
captivity, by the power of Fate I am (now) taken captive
(again).” (206) Said the other; “ (Tell me,) how (now^) did you
suffer captivity before? ” Dapx>le-body said;
STORY 4: DEER’S FORMER CAPTIVITY
(207) Once upon a time I was a six-months-old foal. (208)
(And I ran in front of all the rest, and easily going a long
distance [ahead] I would act as guard to tlie herd. Now we
have two kinds of gaits, the upright [hurdling], and the straight-
away [running]. Of these I was acquainted with the straight-
away, hut not with the upright gait.) (209) Now once upon a
time (as I ran along, I lost sight of the herd of deer. My heart
was terrified, and I gazed about in all directions to see where
they had gone, and perceived them some distance ahead. For)
they (, employing the upright gait.) had all leapt over a snare
and gone on ahead (, and were waiting and looking for me).
(210) And I (rusht forward employing the straight-away gait,)
because I did not know how to go (the upright gait, and was
entangled in the net. Thereupon I) was caught hy the hunter
when he came tp, (211) (And) he took me and brought me
to the king’s son (for him to play with). (212) But (the king’s
son was greatly delighted at seeing me, and gave a reward to
the hunter. And) ho petted and tended me with dainty food
such as I liked, and with other attentions — rubbing me with
unguents, bathing and feeding me, and providing me with per-
fumes and ointments. And the women of the harem and the
princes, finding me very interesting, (past me around from one
person to another and) annoyed me (greatly by pulling at my
neck and eyes, hands, feet, and ears, and by the like attentions).
(213) Now once upon a time, (during the rainy season,) when
I was (right) under the prince’s bed, the longings of my heart
were stirred by the sound of the thunder of the clouds (and
the sight of the lightning), so that (my thots went hack to my
own herd and) I spoke (as, follows);
Story 4: Deer’s former Captivity.— Frame Story: Dove, Crow, &c. 353
“ When shall it he my lot to follow behind the herd of deer
as it runs [hither and yon], driven about by the wind and
rain?” 80.
(214) Thereupon the prince (,who was alone,) was astonisht
and spoke (as follows): “(I am all alone,) who was it that
spoke these words (here)? ” (215) (His heart was greatly troubled,
and) he lookt all around, and notist me. (216) (And) when he
•saw me [he thot]: ^‘It was no human being who said this, but
a deer. Therefore this is a portent (and I am surely undone).”
(217) So thinking he became greatly agitated. (His speech
faltered, and with difficulty he ran out of the house, and) he
fell seriously ill (, as if possest of a mighty demon). (218) (Then
in the morning, being stricken with a fever,) he addrest himself
to all the physicians and devil-doctors, stirring their cupidity
(with [a promise of] much money): (219) (“Whoever can cure
this my disease, to him I will give no mean fee.” But I was)
.at this tim^ (being beaten by the thotless crowd with blows
of sticks, bricks, and clubs, when) a certain (saintly man came
to my rescue, as my life was not yet spent, and said: “ Why
are you killing this [poor] beast? ” And this) noble man, who
knew the meaning of all signs, said to the king’s son; (220)
(Sir,) all the tribes of animals can speak, tbo you may not
know it — but not in the presence of men; he gave expression
to his heart’s fancies (in this way) only because he did not see
you. (His longings were stirred by the rainy season, and his
thots turned to his herd, and so he spoke as he did : ‘ When
shall it be my lot’ &c.) So there is no ground for your illness,
Sir (; ,it is unreasonable).” (221) (And) when the king’s son
hesxd this, hm (feverish) disease left him (and he became whole
as before). (And) he led me away and (anointed me and had
my body washt with plenty of water and set men to watch
over me and) turned me loose in that same forest. (222) (And
the men did just as he told them.) Thus, tho I suffered captivity
before, I have now been captured (again) by the power of Fate.
(End of Story 4)
(223) Now while they were conversing thus, Sluggish, his
heart carried away by love for his friends, (followed their
track, crushing down the reeds, thorns, and kuia-gmsB as he
E^erton, Pancatantra, 11. , 23
354
Book II; Winning of Friends
irent, and rery* slot^dy) eam6 np t6 the ptee where they were.
(224) (And) when they saw him (their hearts were profoundly
alarmed, and) Goldy said (to him): (225) Friend, you have
done ill in (leaving your stronghold and) coming. (Yon cannot
protect yourself from the hunter.) (226) (We, to he sure, can
get away from him. For) if the (villain of a) hunter approaches,
Dapple-body, if his thong is cut, will (take to his heels and)
run away. Lightwing too will fly up in a tree, and I (being
small of body) shall run into a hole. But what can yon do if
you find yourself within his reach, Sir? ’’ (227) Sluggish replied:
(Friend, say not so!)
Who could find endurable separation from his beloved and
loss of his riches, were it not for association with his friends,
which is like a mighty healing herb? 81.
(The days, tho rarely met with, that are spent in association
with cultured and beloved [friends], are like journey-money for
one who has nothing left but the wilderness of life [to travel
thru]. 82.)
By telling one’s sorrow to a devoted friend, to a virtuous
wife, and to a sympathetic lord, the heart seems to find rest.
83. (So, my friend:)
A man’s gaze seems to roam about full of longing, and his
distrest mind strays to unknown regions, when he is sundered
from a devotedly loving aad virtuous friend.’’ 84^
(028) (Even) while he was ^ealring tbe^e wor&, that
arrived. (209) As soon as he saw him, OoMy, having cut the
thong, ran into a hole (as he had said he would). And Light-
wing flew up (into the air) and was gone, while Dapple-body,
too, ran swiftly away. (230) But the hunter, supposing that
the thong had been cut by the deer, thot it a remarkable case
of magic (, and said: ‘‘It must have taken Fate’s help for a
deer to cut a thong! ”). (231) (Then) seeing Sluggish crawling
very slowly along the dry ground, he was somewhat comforted
and said eagerly: “Even if I have been robbed of the deer
(thru its cutting the thong) with Pate’s help, still Fate has
provided (me with) a tortoise.” (232) With these thots he (took
some Ai^ia-grass, cutting it with a knife, and made a strong
rope, and) drew up the tortoise’s feet and bound him securely
and hung him on his how, and set out to return by the same
Frame Story: Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise, and Deer
355
way he had come. (233) Thereupon the deer, the mouse, and
the crow, as they saw him carried off, ran after him (crying)
in the greatest distress. Goldy said:
‘‘Before I get to the end of one sorrow, as to the shore
of an ocean, behold, another has come upon me! In hard times
misfortunes come thick and fast. 85.
As long as a man has not stumbled, so long he proceeds
comfortably on an even path. But once let him stumble never
so little, and there are stumbling-blocks at every step. 86.
(Woe is me!)
No sooner does Fate put an end to wealth, than the shade
called a friend, which is a refreshment for one weary from
the journey, is also ruined. 87.
(234) As for another friend— no, one like Sluggish could not
be found! (Life itself depends on friends, they say.)
Only by rare fortune can one acquire a friend who is a
friend hy his very nature, whose spontaneous friendship does
not perish even in adversity. 88.
Men do not derive so much refreshment from mother, wife,
brother, or son, as from a devoted friend. 89.
The wise declare that a friend increases life in this world.
It is in this world that a friend brings happiness; a friend does
not pertain to the world beyond. 90.
(235) Now why does Fate thus rain its blows so unceasingly
upon me? (For) first, you know, I lost my money; because of
my poverty I suffered the contempt of my followers; from
despair begotten of that came exile from my native land and
separation from a (beloved) friend; behold, this is my chain
of misfortunes. Moreojc^er:
The varying conditions of life, brought about by the con-
tinuous train of men’s deeds, and successively good or bad at
different times, appear, to be sure, in this [single] life, yet
they seem to me as shifting as different reincarnations. 91.
The body embodies disaster; fortune plays the tune of mis-
forttmes; associations have their dissociations^®; everything
is horn dies. 92.
The first three sentences of this stanza contain word»play», which the
translation attempts to imitate.
366
Book II: Winning of Friends
What man is not toucht by calamities when his time comes?
Or who that lives in this world is tinceasingly happy? Fortune
and misfortune come in natural revolution, like the circle of
the constellations^^ revolving in the sky. 93.
Blows rain incessantly on a crippled man; when food is all
gone the fire of the belly rages. Enmities spring up in times
of disaster; in hard times misfortunes come thick and fast. 94.
(236) Alas now, I am smitten with separation from my friend;
what use is there in (trying to forget this, even with the aid
of) my own people? And it is said:
Who created this two-syllabled jewel called ^ comrade/ which
saves from grief, discontent, and danger, and is a vessel of
love and trust? ”95.
(237) After many such lamentations Goldy said to Dapple-
body and Lightwing: “After all, what is the use of vain
lamenting? Let us devise a means of freeing Sluggish before
he is taken out of our range (of vision).” They both said:
“ Let us do so.” Said he: (238) “ Let Dapple-body go in
front of that hunter and fall down (in a place that is far away
from him) near the water and make himself appear (as if)
dead. (239) And as for Lightwing here, let him settle upon
his body, (fixing his feet between his branching antlers,) and
peck at him with his beak and make it appear that he is
picking out his eyes. (240) But that (fool of a) hunter (in his
greediness) will be sure to think * This deer is dead,^ and will
throw away the tortoise and run quickly to get the deer.
(241) (Thereupon,) as soon as he is gone, I (for my part) will
cut Sluggish's bonds. And then, when his bonds are cut, he
will quickly get into the lake. (242) (Bjit further,) when that
wretch of a hunter gets near, then you must do your utmost
to flee from him.” (243) This plan was (precisely) carried out
(by Dapple-body and Lightwing). And when the hunter saw
on the shore the apparently dead deer being eaten by the
crow, he was delighted, (and threw the tortoise down on the
ground) and ran up to the deer. (244) Thereupon Goldy cut
Sluggisks bonds in pieces, and the tortoise (speedily left that
place and) entered the water. (246) And the deer, seeing that
the hunter was near by, got up and disappeared in a twinkling,
The zodiac.
Frame Story: Dove, Crow, Mouse, Tortoise, and Deer
357
along witli the cro\y. (246) Then the hunter (thot this was a
piece of jugglery, and, wondering what it could mean, turned
back. But) when he came to where the tortoise had been,
(then he) saw the (binding) cord (, which was as thick as a
finger,) cut (in pieces), and the tortoise himself vanisht like a
magician. So he began to have doubts of his own body. And
greatly perturbed at heart he rusht out of that wood with
hurried footsteps, (ever looking around in all directions,) and
returned dejectedly to his own house. (247) Then all those
four, free from troubles (and whole in body), came together
again and went to their own place, and spent their time [thence-
forth] in happiness (, dwelling in loving converse with one
another). (Hence;)
When even beasts can form such an alliance as this^ ce-
lebrated thruout the world, what wonder if the like is found
among men, who are endowed with intelligence? 96.
Here ends the Second Book, called the Winning of Friends.
BOOK in
WAR AND PEACE, OR, THE CROWS
AND THE 0\VLS
(1) Now liere begins this, the third book, called (the Crows
and the Owls, and dealing with) War and Peace; of which
this is the opening stanza:
Put no trust in one whom you hawe formerly injured, nor
in an enemy that has turned into a friend. Behold how the
nest Ml of owls was burned with fire brought by Ihe crows. 1.
(2) The king^s sons said; “ (And) how was that? ” Visnusar-
man said:
(3) Once upon a time in a certain forest-region there was
a large banyan-tree, which seemed to offer a welcome to
travelers with the dense shade of its many leaves and bushy
trunks. (4) There dwelt a crow-king named Cloud-color, with
a following of a thousand crows. (5) (Not far from) there (also)
dwelt an owl-king nained Foe-crusher, with a following of a
thousand owls. (6) (And) once he, moved by hatred due to (the
natural) enmity [of crows and owls], (got knowledge of the
crow-fortress from his owls, and) came by night with a
(large) crowd of owls and fell upon this [crow-king] (with a
violence like the power of Death). And he inflicted a terrible
slaughter upon the crows, and departed. (7) And on the morning
of the next day Cloud-color found those that had escaped the
slaughter, many of them with broken beaks, wings, and legs;
and (after ordering an inspection of the whole camp and re-
ceiving a report of it,) he opened a council-meeting of his
ministers with these words: (8) ^‘You see this great slaughter
which has beeu wrought upon us by our enemy Foe-crusher.
He has found the way to our stronghold and will surely fiud
opportunity to come again tonight^ to make an end of us. So
^ Or possibly, with a variant reading, “by night."
Frame Story: Crows and Owls
359
let us lay plans tritliout delay to keep him out.” With these
words they withdrew to a private place. (9) Now he had five
• ministers who had inherited the office by (line of; .succession;
(their names were) Up-flier, Along-flier, Back-flier, Forth-flier,
and Long-hved. (He began to question them one by one.) (10)
And first among them he askt Up-flier: “ (Sir,) under these
circumstances what do you think we should do (next)?” (11)
He replied: “(Do I know anything of special value?) Sire,
I can only say what is said in the books of learning. (But)
when one is attackt by a stronger power, there is nothing to
do but submit to him or leave the country.” (12) Hearing this
he said to Along-flier: “ (Sir,) what is your opinion? ” Said he:
(13) “ (Sire,) as for what he has said, (that one who is attackt
by a stronger power must leave the country,)— now, one ought
not to leave his stronghold of a sudden and without good cause.
Therefore, under these conditions we ought to spend the time
pendulum-fashion*; when danger threatens, we will withdraw,
and when it is safe, we will stay right in our stronghold.”
(14) (Then) when he had noted his advice (also) he askt
Forth-flier: “What is your opinion in this matter? ” He replied:
(15) “ (0 king,) this business of constantly going back and
forth would be fatal. We should have to transport back and
forth the poor, the blind, the cripples, the deformed, those with
withered arms, the lame, the sick, and all our baggage; and
this alone would be enuf to ruin us. Wherefore, under these
conditions peace is the only proper course for us. (Because;)
If a weak king is attackt by a powerful king with a mighty
host, let him hasten to make peace, for the welfare of his
treasury, his army, and himself. 2.
(16) (So,) having made submission to them, we shall stay
here (in peace and undisturbed).” (17) When he had noted
his advice (also), he askt Back-flier: “(Sir, under these con-
ditions) what do you consider timely (for us)? ” He replied:
(18) “ Better to dwell in the forest and use water defiled by the
cuds chewed by deer, than to live in wretched dependence on a*
enemy, for one who has tasted the sweets of lordship.
A mau of power should not bow before one who i»' i^
equal; to bow before one who is not an equal is a great evil.
^ Literally, “like a swing.”
B6ok HI: War and Peace
360
Tibi® too ready siabmissioa is contemptibte foi^ men who are
meii 'in ,p-rowesBr ’3v (And "again:) ' '
tjfnst as in the o£ sticks^ ;a man’s shadow is lengthened
'when he hendsy; ahd''[yet]"’i£"he'bet^^^
destroyed; hence one should hendj but not bend overmuch, 4.
(19) And we have not so much as a common ground of
meeting with them. Without a common ground of meeting how
can we make peace? Therefore war with them is by all meah:^
the best tiling for us.” (20) Then when Cloud-color had taken
note of the opinions of all four (of these one hy one), he said
to Long-lived: Father, you are our (hereditary) minister of
iong[est] standing (and you are ever devoted to our welfare).
What do you think timely now (that things are as they are)?
(And whatever you say I know will be best for us.) ” (21)
(At these words) Long-lived said: “Sire, what is there (that
I might say) that has not been said by these? (For in regard
to war and peace, whether war or peace be proper in this
case, both points of view have been already exprest.) However,
(in regard to what Back-flier said, that advice would he the
ruin of our side. Sir,) how could there he an equal fight
between them and us? It is clear that the fight would be un-
equal for us. They are in all respects [more] powerful. There-
fore it is not wise for us to fi.ght with them. And so:
Whosoever blindly rushes into action without taking account
of Ms own strength and weakness and of his enemy’s too, he
is courting disaster. 5.
One should have respect for enemies, even those of little
weight. For fruitless are the undertakings of those who act
otherwise. 6.
One should be watchful and distrustful of an enemy that is
patient and wise, that attacks at the right season and that
knows the strong and the weak points of himself and his
adversary. 7.
To whomsoever Fortune yields herself, won by sound [politi-
cal] methods, with him surely she abides undisturbed, since
she is not dishonored by her marriage [to him]. 8.
An exalted foe, even at a distance, assuredly destroys the
majesty [of a king]; what can a mean-spirited one accomplish
even tho he be armed and close at hand? 9.
Frame Story: Crows and Owls
361
Do not despise even one who is cowed, who has been sorely
handled, who is in flight or has been deserted, nor even one
who is disarmed or alone. Thus say those who are skilled in
polity. 10.
(The man whose enemy is conquered without trouble is the
[true] victor. Whosoever conquers only after fighting a doubtful
battle that might have been won by either side, he is really
defeated. 11.)
Success [of two kinds] is known: by guile, and by mutual
slaughter. Success gained without strategy means one’s own
death.® Think, which of the two [is preferable]? 12.
For those who- are haughty^ malicious, greedy, lustful, false,
puft up with arrogance, and easily angered, the methods of
government are hard to grasp. 13.
But the same are maintained only by those who do not
overstep the proper bounds, who are well-instructed, self-
controlled, all-patient, skilled in the [political] ways and means,
and 'not stupid. 14.
(22) So warfare is by no means desirable; because feud with,
a superior, like fighting on foot with an elephant, leads to
utter ruin.” (23) Cloud-color said: “(Father, say,) what is the
final outcome? ” He replied: “ (Sir,) consider this. (It is said;)
Surely Fortune, which cannot be won even at the price of
sacrificing one’s life, runs without even a summons into tlie
house of those who know good counsel. 15.
Whoever does not ask, one after the other, [the advice of]
well-wfishing friends who know the books of learning, in regai'd
to various kinds of action, [comes to grief].^ 16.
He who takes consideration of place, forces, duty, political
methods, and [his own] time of life, before he proceeds to
action, — like rivers to the abundant ocean, good fortune streams
in to that excellent man. 17.
Counsellors must be heroes proved spotless by all trials;
they must be wise and far-seeing; for kingship depends on
good counsellors. 18.
An ignorant man never becomes a vessel of good forhine,
no, not tho he have drunk the glory of his foes in battle, —
® Or, “ implies its own end,” i. e. does not oontinne.
* This stanza is fragmentary in the text; the latter Mf Is missing.
battle wliereia flew countless spanks of fee epgi^itdered hj the
clashing of elephants’ tasks* 19. ; . : <
(24) Therefore a following of exc^ent eOunseflofsi fe by all
means necessary for the complete sticeess of him who desires
to conquer. And it is said:
Fortone does .not r^ard descent from an old family line
as a mark of excellence^ nor handsome appearance, nor yet
aequisilion [of knowledge^]. Fickle tho she is, she cleared fe
the man who is brave and attended by good counsellors, and
to him alone. 20,
Is there any doubt of the success of him who makes the [six]
forms of policy® his support? Let him commit himself to the
practices of the noble, and prosperity will not be hard to gain. 21.
Do not proud men rush unhesitatingly to destruction for the
sake of glory? And they will have nothing of a very eternity
of life, if it be attended by disgrace. , 22,
Lift up your right foot [and step forth] unto victory! Why
delay? For our teachers say that procrastination is the root
,of disasters. 23.
What profit is there in these vain parrot-chatterings, that
are rejected as soon as heard ’^? [If] you are wise — abandon
silence and speak forth what the time demands. 24.
For the wise declare that victory has its root in good counsel.
But the soul and the understanding are the abiding-place of
good counsel. 26.
But it is well known that there are just six doors to counsel
[thru which it may be betrayed], 0 king. [Altho] you know
them already, Sir, I will name them, 0 you of glorious name! 26.
One’s self; a minister, and a messenger; a secret agent; the
process of the three daily ablutions; and the expressions [of the
face and gestures] they name as the sixth. Such is the accepted
opinion concerning counsel. 27.
Hear however the fruit of counsel that is not communicated.
One [thereby] gains complete worldly profit, without loss in
religion or love.® 28.
® Or, perhaps, “ [of property].”
® For these see Book I, § 188 (page 293).
^ Or possibly, “that are rejected by inspired authority.”
^ On these three objects of human desire compare page 272, note 4.
Frame Story: Crows and Owls
363
Now the threefold advantage of counsellors is this: approval
of decisions, removal of doubt, and his ever-present wis-
dom.^ 29.
(25) (Therefore an effort must be made to keep every counsel
confidential.^^ Since:) •
Counsel falsely applied, like a ghoul improperly invoked,
is sure to destroy him who uses it before it can be stopt. 30.
Division of counsel amohg ministers leads to naught but
destruction for one's own party and the exaltation of the enemy;
it can never be profitable. 31.
He who apportions properly his income and outlay^ whose
agents are secret and whose counsel is private, and who speaks
not unkindly to his ministers — he shall rule the earth to the
edge of the ocean. 32.
(26) Therefore I say again: War is not desirable. But peace
also is an impossible thing for us, since we have a natural
lasting feud [with the owls]. (27) Now then if you really want
my advice, send away these [ministers] that are clever in talk
[alone], that live by nothing but a mere pretense of ministry.
“When matters of pressing moment are on foot, secret counsel
does not bear fruit if heard by six ears." (28) And when this
had been done, Cloud-color said: ‘‘Father, (I am young and
inexperienst ; 1 will do just as you say, for all of this is
dependent on you.) You are one wiiose advice is profitable;
you have learning and the wisdom of experience, and you are
my w^ell-wisher by inheritance. (But tell me something that
I am curious to know:) How’' (pray) did our feud with the
owls begin?" (29) He replied: “(Sir,) by a mistake of speech.
For after long grazing on grass without interruption in tlie
summer-time, the foolish ass that was covered with a panther's
skin was killed because of the mistake of speech." 33.
(30) Said the other: “And how was that?" Long-lived said:
® Hertel, “constant knowledge of him [the king].” This seems hardly to
give sense, and I prefer to understand tasya as possessive and referring to
the minister, in spite of a certain looseness or harshness in the chaug© from
plural to singular (which I keep in the translation).
Text here corrupt and uncertain.
I differ from Hertel in understanding duri^pa[ff]y adj.,. rather tfean
noun \ “ badly invoked ” rather than “ evil magic.” The word translated
“ghoul” is the modem Hindi haitaL
Book III: War and Peace
3M
STORY 1: ASS IN PANTHER^S SKIN
(31) A certain ■washerxaan had an ass who was wpra Put with
the vexation of exceeding great burdens (in carrying clothes).
(32) And the washerman, thinking to revive him, covered him
with a panther’s skin and turned him loose by night ip; grain
that belonged to others. (33) And he ate the grain as muph as
he pleased, and no one (approacht him or) drove him away
(from the grain), because they thot him a panther. (34) Now
(once upon a time) a certain (husbandman, a) watchman of the
grain, saw him, and thot: ‘‘(That is) a panther! (I am lost!)’’
And he (bent over and) wrapt his body in his (gray) cloak,
and, with uplifted how in his hand, began to slink away (very
cautiously). (35) And seeing him (from a distance) the ass, whose
frame had grown fat (and who had recovered his strength),
took him for a she-ass; and (since his life was doomed to end)
he (put on full speed and) started in pursuit. (But the man ran
faster than ever. And the ass thot: “Perhaps she may mistake
me for what I am not, because she sees my body covered with
the panther’s skin. So I will take on my true nature for her
and charm her heart with a bray.” So thinking) he began to
bray. (36) (And) hearing this the watchman of the grain knew
(by ihe sound) that it was an ass, and (turned around and)
killed him with an arrow.
(End of Story 1)
(37) Therefore I say: “For after long grazing” &c. (38) “Thus
our feud with the owls (also) began in a mistake of speech.”
(Cloud-color said: “How was that?” He told the story:)
STORY 2: BIRDS ELECT KING
(39) Once upon a time when they had no king all the birds
assembled and considered whom they should consecrate king
of the birds. And they decided that they would install the owl
as king. (40) And they collected all the things (required) for
the coronation (according to prescribed rites), and set about
the ceremony of the coronation with the parasol, chowrie, (fans,
throne, royal seat, linen garments, [sacred vessels in the form of]
mystic diagrams,) and the other [emblems of royalty], (41) AI
365
%
Story 1. — Frame Story. — Story 2, — Story 3
this point a crow flew thru the air and alighted. But when they
saw him they halted the coronation [saying] : He also must
without fail have a part in the assembly (; because this affair
of royalty is of great importance for the entire world)/' And
when he arrived they askt him (: “Sir, do you also agree to
this, that the owl shall be king? ”). (42) (Then) he said: “Why,
are all the other birds annihilated, the swans, ducks, ruddy
geese, curlews, peacocks, cuckoos, pigeons, pheasants and the
rest, that this owl with his ungracious appearance is made king?
Moreover ;
Orooked-nosed, squint-eyed, savage and unfriendly in look;
when he is not angry his face is evil; what, pray, will he do
when he is angry? 34,
Naturally savage and very cruel, mean and unpleasant in
speech: if you crown this owl king, how can you hope for
protection? 35.
(43) He inflames every thing he looks at/^ and cannot be
used [even] in a bluff. And it is said:
Even in a bluff may lie success, if a king is without power.
By the bluff of the moon^^ the hares dwell in peace." 36.
(44) The birds said: “(And) how was that?" The crow said:
STORY 3: ELEPHANT, HARES AND MOON
(45) Once upon a time there was a drought for twelve years.
(46) (And) by reason of this the pools, ponds, tanks, and lakes
w'ere dried up, and all the animals (were tormented with
thirst and) fell into dire distress, but especially the elephants.
(47) Now the king of the elephants, whose name was Four-
tusks, was appealed to by the other elephants: (48) “Sire, the
young elephants are tormented with thirst; some of them are
in a dying condition (and others are dead). So let some plan
be devised for relieving our thirst." (49) Then the king of tlie
herd sent swift runners in (all) eight directions to search for
water. (50) And one of them returned and said: “(Sire,) not
far away there is a lake named Moonlake, full of (pure) water
Literally, “ tie makes an inflammation (more exactly, a preter-
natural redness of the horizon) of what is seen [by him].” HefTtei bompletely
misunderstands this sentence and the following stanza.
L e.f by using the moon in a bluff.
366
Book UX: War and Peace
and as large as a quarter of tie skjJ^ (51) Aj^d;. (accordingly)
the elephant-king took all of them in (great haste wd) Joy and
arrived at the lake. (52) And as they went down tO’ te bank
of the lake (which was difficult of access On all sides), tlioy
crusht the heads and necks of many hares which ,h#d been
living on this bank. (53) Now when this elephanthend, ;^er
drinking and bathing, had departed, (54) the hares, that were
left alive began to take counsel. Then the hare-king, whose
name was Spike^snout, said: “What is now to be done? (Our
' trihe is ruined.) They have found the way and will surely come
here again. Therefore (before they get here) let us contrive some
plan."^’ (56) Then a hare named Victory, who had had much
experience, said to them: “This can be done; I promise you
Aat tibey shall not come here again. However, he so gracious
aa to furnish me merely with a witness to my actions.'^ (56)
Hearing this Spike-snout said (joyfully): “I am very sure of
it, my dear sir! Since:
When Victory is sent forth, who knows the essence of the
teachings of the books on political science, and who knows how
to distinguish [right and wrong] places and times [for actions],
then will success be complete. 37.
Whosoever speaks what is salutary, speaks in moderation,
speaks in Sanskrit, and speaks not overmuch, and whosoever
apeaks only after considering the facts, his speech, I say, is
effective in all undertakings. 38.
(57) The elephants will learn of my triple power even the
I remain far away, when they perceive the greatness of your
wit For :
By beholding a messenger or a letter from a king whom I have
not seen, I can tell whether that king is wise or unwise. 39.
For a messenger can cause union, and can also sunder those
that are united. A messenger performs the work by which men
prosper, 40.
(58) And if you go it is the same as if I myself went. Because:
You may speak what is appropriate and fitting, and what you
consider good; you may say what you will; all of it shall be
the same as my own word, 41.
The literary and learned language, as distinguisht from popular' dialecte.
See page 298, note 23.
story 3 : Elephant, Hares and Moon
367
(This is the whole duty of a messenger : words that are suited
to the object in hand, and no more. He should know how
to express briefly his purpose, so as to produce the desired
effect.” 42.)
(59) After these words the hare- Victory took leave of the
hare-king and went to visit the elephant-king. (60) And when
he had gone and beheld the elephant-king, he thot: (61) ^^Itis
impossible for such as me, with my small body, to meet him.
Since they say:
An elephant slays with a mere touch, a snake merely by
smelling, a king with a mere laugh, an evil man even in
extending courtesies. 43.
(62) Therefore I will climb the mountain-peak before I salute
the elephant-king.” After doing so he said: (63) ‘^(Ho there!)
Peace be with you!” (And hearing this) the elephant-king (lookt
around and) said (to the hare) : ‘‘ Who are you, and whence
come you, Sir?” Said he: (64) “I am a messenger sent forth
by the Lord Moon.” The king of the herd said: “Declare your
business.” The hare said: “You know, Sir, of coui’se, that it
is not right to find fault with a messenger who is truthfully
stating his message. (For each and every king uses a messenger
as his mouthpiece. And it is said:)
Even when there has been a resort to arms, a messenger
speaks not falsely. Since they say only what they have been
told to say, a king must not kill them. 44.
(65) Now by the Moon’s command I say: ‘(How is it that
you venture to inflict injury on others without taking account
o£ the difference between yourself and your adversary? And
it is said:)
Whosoever blindly rushes into action without taking account
of his own strength and weakness and of his enemy’s too, he
is courting disaster. 45.
(66) Now you have (unjustly) violated the Moon-lak:e, (which
is distinguisht by my name,) (67) and have killed there the
hares who are uxtder pi otectien. And this is not ;
Now I owe to tia.em my own personal support. (68) ®ecii»e
1 wear them on my breast, for that very reason I aafi faaibwn
(among men) by the name of the Hare-markt.^® (69) If now
The Hindus discern the picture of a liare, instead of a mau, in the moon.
3,68
Book III : War and Peace
you <3.0 inot cease from tjiis (unlawful) condu<Jt, then (you will
BUiffier great harm thru me. If you cease you will get great profit;
your body shall be refresht by my rays.^ Oth^ryrise) I shall
withhold my rays, and your body shah he scorcht with heat,
md you shah (straightway) perish (along with your followers).'
(70) After this speech (of the messenger) the elephantrking’s
heart was moved (with exceeding great fear), and he, SMd
(to him): (71) ‘^(Friend,) this is true; I have offended (thfia
ignorance); now I will not commit any hostile act against the ,,,
Idooa." (72) Said the other: ‘^His Majesty is right here in this
very lake; so come, Sir, (all alone,) that I may show him to
you; and when you have paid homage to our Lord (and pacified
him) you may depart.'' (73) So speaking he took the elephant
by night to the Moon-lake and showed him in the water the
image of (the full disc of) the moon. (74) But he (, the elephant-
king,) thot: “I will (completely purify myself and then) pay
homage to the god;" and he put his trunk into the water (to
a distance of twice the length of a man's arm), (75) Then the
moon’s disc, stirring in the troubled water, moved this way
and that (as if fixt on a wheel, so that the elephant saw a
thousand moons). (76) (Then Victory, pretending that his heart
was greatly alarmed, turned around and said: ^‘Alas, alas! You
have made the Moon twice as angry as before!") (77) Said he:
“Why is the revered Moon angry with me?" Victory said: 1
Because you toucht his water." (78) Thereupon, when he "
heard this, the elephant (with his tail between his legs withdrew
his trunk and fell on his knees and) bowed his head down to
the ground and said to the (revered) Moon with an obeisance: )
(79) “0 god, (it was thru ignorance that I did this;) forgive ;;
me! (And) I will not come back here again." (80) So saying
(without even looking around) he went away (by the way he , i
had come, and never came back again). ,
(End of Story 8)
(81) Therefore I say: “Even in a bluff may lie success" &c.
(82) “Moreover, this evil-mioded fellow (, the owl,) is mean r*;
and could not protect bis subjects. And it is said: (p
The Hindus suppose that the moon’s rays have a positively and definitely
'tooling' and refreshing effect on whatever they touch.
■ ^4'
•f?
Story 3. — Story 2. — Story 4
369
In applying to a mean king [as judge], how can two litigants
get off well? Both of them are doomed to destruction, like the
hare and the partridge.” 46.
(83) The birds said: “(And) how was that?” Said he:
STORY 4: CAT, PARTRIDGE, AND HARE
(84) Once long ago I was dwelling in a certain tree. (85) In
a hole under the (same) tree dwelt a bird called a partridge.
(86) Now as a result of our dwelling together a (clo&e) friend-
ship (with one another) sprang up between us, and every day
at early evening (after we had eaten and taken our recreation
outside) we would spend the time in pleasant conversation with
questions on both sides. (87) Then one time the partridge failed
to arrive (even at even-tide), at the time when we were wont
to converse. (88) For this reason I was much perturbed at
heart, and I wondered: “Can he have been killed or caught,
or has he taken a liking to another dwelling-place (, that he
does not come) ? ” While I was pondering on this many days
past. (89) (And) after this a hare named Long-ears came and
settled in the hole in which he had lived. (90) And when I saw
him I reflected: “That friend of mine is not; what concern have I
with the dwelling?” (91) When he had remained there some
time, the partridge came back (to the same place). (92) When
he found the hare in his hole, he said: “(See here,) this is my
place, so depart (from it quickly).” (93) He said (to him): “Fool,
(do you not know that) a dwelling (and food) are to be enjoyed
by whoever is at hand? ” (94) The partridge said: “There are
witnesses^® available here; let us ask them (, since that is what
the case demands. And it is said in the lawbooks);
Concerning tanks, pools, and ponds, concerning a house and
a dwelling, the testimony of neighbors is decisive; thus Manu^®
has declared.” 47. ■
(95) “So be it,” agreed the other, and they set out to have the
question decided at law. (96) I also followed close behind them,
being curious (to see what the outcome would be). (97) When
^ Or, umpires.^’
Manu is the Hindu Adam, eponymeus progenitor of the htnuaa raoe;
but in later times he is prindpally renowned as reputed author of the most
famous Hindu lawbook.
Edgerton, Paficatantra. II. * 24t
370
Book III: War and Peace
they tad not gone very far (from there) the partridge said
(to the hare): (But) who will hear oar (98) The
hare said: “(Why, here is) this aged cat nanaed Ourd-ears,
who liwes on the hank of flie river, devoted to penanGe, and
who shows compassion to all living creatures: he knows the
law: he will make a lawful decision for ns/’ (99) (And hearing
Ihis) ihe partridge said: “Away with that mean creature!, (And
it is said:)
(Do not trust one who covers himself with the mask of a
devotee. Many devotees are seen at the holy pilgrimage-places
who lack not throats and teeth!” 48.)
(100) And hearing this (the cat) Curd-ears, (who had assumed
a false aspect in order to make his living by easy means,) that
he might win their confidence, stood up on two legs and gazed
(steadfastly) towards the sun, and with outstretcht arms, closing
one eye [only], engaged in prayer. (101) (And) as he prayed
their hearts trusted in him, and they crept up towards him
and made known their dispute about the dwelling [saying]:
“0 holy devotee, teacher of the law, we two have a dispute;
so decide it for us according to the law-codes!” (102) And he
said: “I am old and my senses are dulled, so that I cannot
hear very well from a distance. Come quite close and speak
lottd.” Then they came nearer and told their story. (103) Then
he, (Curd-ears,) winning their confidence so as to make them
come closer, recited texts from the lawbooks:
“Whmi righteousness is destroyed, it destroys in turn; when
righteousness is preserved, it preserves. Therefore we must
not destroy righteousness, lest it, being destroyed, destroy
us, 49.
Righteousness is our only friend that follows us even in death;
for all else goes to destruction together with the body, 50.
In blind darkness are we sunk who offer sacrifices with
beasts. A higher reUgious duty than harmlessness has never
been nor shall be. 51.
Whosoever regards other men’s wives like a mother, other
men’s possessions . like clods of earth, and all creatures like
himself — he has true vision.” 52.
(104) (So, to make a long story short,) by his hypocrisy he
won their confidence to such an extent that they came up to
story 4: Oat, Partridge, and Hare.-— Story 2; Birds elect King 371
him quite close; and then with one stroke they were (both)
caught and killed (by that mean creature).
(End of Story 4)
. (105) Therefore I say: “ In applying to a mean king [as judge]
&c. (106) So this owl (, being a mean creature,) is in no way
worthy of the kingship/’ (107) (But) when they heard this
(speech of his) they thot: “He has spoken well/’ And they
said: “We will hold a meeting some other time and consider
this important matter of the kingship.” So saying all the birds
disperst as they had come. (108) (But the owl was left all alone,
waiting for the coronation upon the seat of state. And he askt:
“ Who was it that made this speech to my hurt? ” And having
learned that it was a crow,) the owl’s mind was inflamed by what
the crow had said, and he said to him: (109) “ What injury have
I ever done to you, that you interfered with my coronation?
What is pierst by an arrow grows together; wood that is cut
with an ax likewise, and even that which is burnt by a forest
fire; [but] a wound made by words does not grow together, 63,
(110) (In short,) now from this day forth there shall be
enmity between us and you.” (Ill) So speaking the owl, in
dudgeon, departed (to the place whence he had come), (112)
But that crow reflected (, full of concern): “ What an evil
thing I have done now, in a matter that concerns the common
weal! (It is well said:)
Whosoever speaks without good reason a word that is not
appropriate to the time and the place, that is not fitted to future
events, that is unfriendly and degrading to the speaker — that
shall not be [regarded as] a word; it shall be [regarded as]
nothing but poison. 54.
Surely a wise man, even if he be strong, should not de-
liberately make another his enemy. For who that is in his right
mind would eat poison without any purpose, merely because he
knows lhat a physician is at hand? 55.
(113): So this has befallen me because of my stupidi^* A^d
whatever is done without first taJMng it over with Welh^ii#hiti^
friends is sure to come out so, A^d it is said:
After faithful friends have more than once considered i^ and
after he himself has repeatedly examined its bearings, then
24»
Book in : War and Peace
obJj shoald a maxi proceed to any action, if ke is wise. Such
a man and no other is a yessel of fortune and renown.’’ 66.
(114) After speaiing thus the crow also departed (from that
^ ^ (Ettd of Story 2) , , , ' ,
(115) thus it was, Sire, that our feud with the idwls
a^ose as a result of a speech.’’ (116) Cloud-color saidt f^I
have understood this [story]. Now, father, take thot and contrive
some plan before they come back here to make an attack upon
us?’ (117) Said he: ‘‘ My lord, of the six political methods,*^
(namely, peace, war, waiting policy, march, alliance, and double-
dealing,) peace and war have already been referred to. (118)
But at present we have no opportunity for a waiting-policy,
march, alliance, or double-dealing. Because: waiting-policy, in
the face of a more powerful enemy, leads to the destruction
of one’s citadel (and oneself), and march (evidently) means the
abandonment of one’s citadel; and with what powerful ally
could we ally ourselves? and to wliom could we apply the
policy of double-dealing? (119) Now under these circumstances
there is no chance for us to apply the four devices of con-
ciliation, bribery, dissension, and violence.^^ There is [however]
a fifth device, namely deceit, (not) found in the authorities. This
I approve, and I shall resort even to this in order to conquer
(and hundliate) the enemy. And it is said:
Many powerless adversaries, opening hostilities, can succeed
in tricMng [theii: enemy] by their wits, as happened to the
hrahman in the case of the goat?’ 57.
(120) Said he: “And how was that?” Long-lived said:
STORY 5: BRAHMAN AND ROGUES
(121) Once a brahman who had got a goat from another village
to make an animal-sacrifice was going to his own home with
the goat on his shoulder, (122) when he was seen on the way
by [some] rogues. They thot: “ Let us get the goat away from
this brahman! ” (123) So they came to a decision, and they
(divided themselves into groups of one, two, and three, and)
Compare Book I, § 1S8, et pa^nm>
Compare Book I, vss 1S3 and 1S4.
Story 2. — Frame Story. — Story 5. — Frame Story 373
came in the opposite direction along the road before him. (124)
But the first one of them said to the brahman: Why are you
carrying this dog on your shoulder? (Or is it because he is
good at killing animals?)” (So saying he departed.) (125) The
brahman thot: “What does this villain mean? The idea of my
carrying a dog on my shoulder!” (126) As soon as the next
two (rogues) met him, they also said to the brahman: “Brahman,
what is this unseemly thing that you are doing? The sacred
cord, (the rosary^ the holy water-pot^ and the sec^mark on
your forehead,) and a dog on your shoulder ( — it does not fit
at all)! But no doubt it must be a clever dog at killing hares,
deer, and boars.” (So saying they went past) (127) But the
brahman (in wonderment) put the goat on the ground, and felt
of the parts of its body all over, (its ears, horns, privy parts,
tail, and other members, and thot: “They are fools; how can
they imagine that this is a dog?”) and put it on his shoulder
again and went on. (128) After this the other three said to the
brahman: “ Touch us not! (Go to one side of us!) For you are
pure in outward appearance alone^ brahman; you are handling
a dog, and so you must surely be a hunter!*^ ” (So saying they
departed.) (129) Then that brahman thot: “ Can I have taken
leave of my senses? And yet the majority must be right. Un-
natural things are indeed found to occur in the world; perhaps
this is an ogre that has taken the form of a dog. (After all
an ogre would be capable of assuming a dog’s form.) ” (130)
So thinking he turned the goat loose, and bathed®®, and went
home. (131) And the rogues took the goat and ate it.
(End of Story 5)
(132) Therefore I say: “ Many powerless ” &c. (133) “ There-
fore, (Sire,) I have something to suggest; (think well on it and)
do just as I tell you.” (Said be: “ Father, what is it? ” Long-
lived said: “ Sire,) (134) You must pluck out my feathers, and
revile me with very harsh words, and smear me with blood
taken (from those who have been slain already), and throw m©
down under this satr^ (banyan-)tree, and go to Mount
In India hunters constitute one of the lowest and naost despised of
castes? compare Book II, §§ 6
To purify himself from the touch of a flog:, a very impure animal.
374
Book HI: War and PeacO
and stay there with your followers, (135) unlal I (by means
prescribed in the books of learning) start them all on the road
to destruction,®^ and ha^dng accomplisht iny purpose come (again
your presence. And you must show no nieroy io me),”
(IM) Ajfter this had beeJa done, at sunset (that) ffoe-^ctmsher
dew up upon that (same) banyan-tree with Hs (retipue oi^
wa|?riors< (l37) he Could not find a single crow there, (And
a|igih&Lg oh the top of the tree he tibot: Where can those
enmnies haTe gone?”) (138) (Then) Long-lived, lying on the
ground (unseen by them), reflected as follows: these foes
depart without so much as discovering what has happened, then
what have I accomplisht? (And it is said:)
The first mark of intelligence, to he sure, is not to start
things, the second mark of intelligence is to pursue to the end
what you have started. 58.
(139) (Therefore it is better not to begin anything than to
drop what you have begun. So I will reveal myself to them
by letting them hear my voice.) ” (140) With this thot Long-
lived made a very feeble cry, (141) The owls who were near-by
beard it, and realized that it was a crow’s cry, and reported
it to their lord. (142) And hearing this, Foe-crusher, full of
curiosity, came down and (made sure of the facts and) said to
hp ministers: “Ask him who he is.” (143) Thereupon he said:
Long-lived.” (144) Hearing this the owl-king was astonisht
and said: This is the well-heioved chieLminister of that crow-
king. How did he get to such a condition?” (145) (Being
questioned about this) he said (to him): “(My lord, listen!)
After you had inflicted (something of) a massacre [upon the
crows] and had gone away, Cloud-color (lookt upon his warriors
that had escaped the slaughter, and was deeply distrest; and
he) (146) took counsel with his ministers. To make a long story
short, they were for undertaking your destruction. (147) (Then)
I said: ‘They are strong, and we are helpless; hence (by aU
means) the best thing (for us) is simply to submit (to them).
(And it is said:)
A powerless person, if he seeks his own welfare, should not
even think of carrying on a feud with a more powerful enemy.
Literally, “ make tkeir faces turned towards the south [the region of
Yama, god of death].”
Frame Story: Crows and Owls
375
It he acts like the reed [that bends before the storm],
he is not deprived of his possessions; if he acts like the
moth [that flies into the flame], complete destruction awaits
him.’ 59.
(148) Then the crows said that I was taking sides with the
enemy, and without a moment’s consideration they brought
me to the state in which you find me.” (149) (And) when
Foe-crusher heard this, he took counsel with his (hereditary)
ministers, Red-eye, Oruel-eye, Flame-eye, Crooked-nose, and
Wall-ear. (150) First among them he askt Red-eye: “(Sir,
under these circumstances) what is to be done?” (151) Said
he: “What need for thinking it over? He should be killed
without hesitation. For:
A feeble enemy should be destroyed, before he has a chance
to become strong. Afterwards, when he has gained strength
and prowess, it may be hard to subdue him. 60.
(152) Moreover, it is a well-known saying that if Fortune
comes to you unsought and is rejected, she curses you. (And
it is said:)
Since opportunity comes only once to a man who is looking
for opportunity, it is hard to find the opportunity again when
he wishes to do the deed. 61,
(153) So by killing him, (your enemy,) you will make your
kingdom free from thorns,” (154) Having heard this (word
of his) he askt Oruel-eye: “(Sir, but) what do you think?”
Said he: “(Sire,) he must not be killed (since he is a fugitive.
Because):
Cowardly and merciless men, who in this life strike down
fugitives that are buffeted by many blows and that make
piteous appeals to them, are doomed to Rsurava and the other
[hells]. 62. '
(By protecting a terrified fugitive who takes refuge with him,
a man gets more merit than by performing the Horse-sacrifice*^
complete with all its excellent accompaniments.” 63.)
(156) Having heard this (also) he askt Flame-eye: “(Sar^)
what do you think?” Said he: “(Sire,) it is most certain ihat
a fugitive (even tho an enemy) must not be killed.
The most elaborate and costly, and so the most meritorious, of the
Vedic sacrifices.
376
Book III: War and Peace
For it is related ttat a dove entertained in due fashion its
enemy who applied to it for refuge, and even invited him to
feast on its own ftesh.^® 64.
* She who is ever wont to shrink from me, now e&hraces
rne! My henefacstor, blessings upon yon! Take away all that
I haveP 65.
(156) (But) the thief said:
see nothing that I would take from you. If there should
be something to take, I will come back again, if she should
not enihrace yon.’^’ 66.
(157) Foe-crusher said: (And) how was that?” Said he:
STORY 6: OLD MAN, YOUNG WIFE, AND THIEF
(158) Once there was a certain merchant who was more
than eighty years old, but who by the attraction of his money
succeeded in marrying a young wife. (159) (But) she, being
(in the bloom of her youth and) united to an old man, felt
that her youth was wasted, and tho she lay on the bed beside
him every night, turned her slender body away, ([motionless]
as a painted picture,) and was completely wretched. (160) (Now)
one night a thief, a robber of (other men’s) goods, came into
his house. (161) (And) she ^aw him and was frightened, and
turned around, and threw her arms about her husband and
held him close. (162) And when this happened his whole body
was thrilled with love and joy, and thinking “ Why has this
wonderful tMng happened to me, that surpasses imagination?”
he lookt all around, and caught sight of the thief; (and he
reflected again : Of course it is thru fear of him that she
embraces me!” Realizing this,) (163) he said (to him): (My
friend,) she who is ever wont to shrink from me ” &c,
(164) But the thief said to him (friendly- wise): “I see nothing
that I would take from you ” &c.
(End of Story 6)
(165) So (in this case) favorable consideration was shown
even to a thief, a robber of other men’s goods and an evil-doer.
This stanza alludes to a story of a self-sacrificing dove which enter-
tained, in the manner described, a bird-hunter. The tale is told, in a versified
form, in one comparatively late version of the Paficatantra at this place.
Frame Story. — Story 6. — Frame Story. — Story 7
377
(How much more to one who comes as a fugitive!) (166) Besides,
(since he has been injured by them,) he will help in out success
(and work to their destruction, or he may reveal their weak
points). So he must not be killed.” (167) Hearing this Foe-crusher
askt (his next minister) Crooked-nose: “(Sir,) what should be
done (in the present case)?” Said he: “(Sire,) he must not be
killed. For:
Even enemies may be useful when they fall out with each
other. The thief saved [the brahman’s] life, while the ogre
[saved] his two cows.” 67.
(168) The king said: “And how was that?” He told this
story:
STORY 7: BRAHMAN, THIEF, AND OGRE
(169) Once a certain (poor) brahman received a present of a
pair of cows, which (had been brought up from young calves by
feeding with ghee, oil, salt, grass, and [other] wholesome foods,
so that they) were very fat. (170) And a certain thief saw them,
and he thot (as follows): “(This very day) I shall steal them.’^
(171) So he started out in the early evening, (172) and as
he went along some (unknown) person toucht him (on the
shoulder). (173) Whereupon he askt (in alarm): “Who are
you?” (174) (And) he spoke (truthfully): “I am a (night-
roaming) brahman-ogre.^’^ (175) You (also) tell me w’ho you
are.” (176) Said he: “I am a thief.” (And when the other
askt again: “Where are you going? ” he said:) “I intend to
steal a pair of cows from a (certain) brahman. (But where are
you going?)” (177) (Then being reassured by this information)
the (brahman-) ogre (also) said: “I too have started out to
seize that same brahman.” (178) Then they went thither (both
together) and stayed (at one side, waiting for the proper time).
(179) And when the brahman had gone to sleep the brahman-
ogre was creeping up to seize him (first); (180) when the thief
said to him: “(This is not the right way.) After I have stolen
his two cows, then you may seize him.” (181) Said th?e
“(That too would be wrong.) Perchance the noise (of the pow)
might wake him, and then I should have come in vMn.”
A brahman (in a preyions existence) ehang^ed, because of sinful actions,
into an ogre. Ogres {rdJc?ams) are monsters who live on the of men
Book HI: War and Peace
378
(182) The thief said: “When you seize him he may arise
and make an outcry. (Then all the rest [of the people] will he
roused; and if that happens) then I should he unahle to steal
his two cows. (So I will steal the cows first, and afterwards
you may eat the brahman.) ” (183) As they were thus disputing
with one another (they got angry, and with their rivalry) they
woke up the brahman (simultaneously). (184) (Thereupon) the
thief said: “(Brahman,) this brahman-ogre wants to seize you.”
(185) (But) the (brahman-) ogre said: “This thief wants to steal
your two cows.” (186) Hearing this the brahman got up and
(being put on his guard) saved himself from the ogre by reciting
the manira^^ (of his sect’s deity), and saved his two cows from
the thief by brandishing his cudgel. (187) (So both) the thief
and the ogre departed.
(End of Story 7)
(188) Therefore I say: ^^Even enemies may be useful” &c.
(189) ‘^(Moreover:)
It is also related, you know, that the noble and virtuous ^ibi
gave his own flesh to the falcon to save the dove.^® 68,
(190) Therefore you (also) ought not to slay a fugitive.”
(191) Thereupon he askt Wall-ear. And he too gave the same
advice. (192) Then Red-eye (arose, and smiling ironically to
himself) said again: “(Alas!) Our lord here is ruined by you
with your bad policy. And it is said:
Even when an injury is done him before his very eyes, a
fool is satisfied by fair words. The carpenter carried his own
wife with her lover on his head.” 69.
(193) They said: “ (And) how was that? ” He replied:
STORYS: CUCKOLD CARPENTER
(194) In a certain town there was a carpenter, (196) whose
beloved wife was unchaste, as he had been warned by his
friends and kinsmen. (196) So to ascertain the truth he said to
her: “My dear, there is a king’s hall to be built in a far-away
village, and I must go there (tomorrow), I shall spend a number
Sacred stanza.
This stanza alludes to a well-known story of a self-sacrificing king
named Tlie story is inserted secondarily at this point in one version.
Story 7. — Frame Story. — Story 8.— Frame Story 379
of days thez'e. So make ready some provisions such as are
needful for my journey.” (197) And she right gladly made ready
the provisions as he bade her. (198) (And when she had done
so, he took his tools and his provisions* for the journey and)
while it was still night (, during the last watch^) he said to
her: am going, my dear; lock the doorJ ” (199) But the
carpenter returned without her knowledge, and entered his
house (by the back door), and placed himself with his apprentice
under his (own) bed. (200) She however was overjoyed at the thot
that she could meet her lover this day without any hindrance;
and she caused her lover to be summoned by her g^o-between,
and they began to eat and drink and so forth without fear in
that very house. (201) And before they satisfied their lust, it
happened that in moving her feet she toucht the carpenter on
the knee. (202) At this she thot: Without doubt that must
he the cai'penter! Now what can I do?” (203) (And) at that
moment her lover (adjured her and) said: ^^(Dear, tell me,)
which do you love more, me or your husband? ” (204) Where-
upon that quick-witted woman said: (205) “What a question
to ask! We women of course are light in our morals and do
all manner of things; (206) (in short,) if we had not noses, we
should undoubtedly be willing to eat dung; (that tells the whole
Story in a nutshell.) (207) [But] if I should hear of any harm,
(even the slightest,) to my husband, I should (straightway) give
up the ghost.” (208) Then the carpenter’s heart was deceived
by the lying words of that shameless woman, and he said to
his apprentice: (209) “Long live my beloved and supremely
devoted wife! I will honor her in the eyes of all people!”
(210) So saying he lifted her with her lover, as tJbey lay in
bed, on his head, and ran with Ikem along the king’s highway
(and the other streets), and all the people laught at him.
(End of Story 8)
(211) Therefore I say: ^^Even when an injury is done hii^
before his very eyes ” &c. (212) “ So we are surely desfeoyell
(root and branch. This certainly is a true saying) t '
(Ministers in outward guise, hut r^ly foes, the wi^ Anld
hold those who depart from salutary policy and praCtte the
the reverse of it. 70.) .
Book Els War and Peace
plveia the noble ate asstiredlj destroyed, like darkness at
snntise, if they are forgetfal of [the proper] place and time
i[fcr actions]^ becto^e of hating a foolish ministeir^V 71.)
'^21S) Bnt eren then [the owl-king] paid no heed to his words,
fe%t lifted: np IjOhg^liTed and stfiirted to take him to his own
^tadeL (214) At this point Long-lived said (in order to win
(^nfidence): ‘’Sire, (why take me along, since in this con-
ditiort I am good for nothing?) What use have I for Aile &
my present plight? Therefore cause fire to be furnisht me, ^ud
I wifi ihrow myself into it.” (215) Red-eye (however,) whe
understood his secret purpose, (indicated by his expression of
countenaacej) said: ‘‘Why do you wdsh to throw yourself into
fire?” (216) Said he: “(Why,) I have been reduced to this
plight on your account: hence I wish to obtain rebirth as an
owl, by virtue of sacrificing my body in the fire, that I may
pay back the grudge I owe the crows,” (217) Red-eye said:
‘‘ This speech of yours is like wine mixt with poison, in that
its inner nature is concealed; its primary character is delightful,
but what will come out of it is not easy to guess therefrom. 72.
(218) Villain, for you to be reborn as an owl is impossible
(and unthinkable). Because:
Renouncing the sun as husband, and the rain and the wind
and the mountain, the mouse-maiden returned to her own nature.
For nature is hard to overcome.” 73.
(219) He said: (And) how was that? ” Red-eye said:
STORY 9: MOOSE-MAIDEN
(220) Once (in) a certain (country a) sage was about to rinse
his mouth (after his hath) in the Ganges, (221) when a (young)
mouse dropt from the mouth of a falcon and fell into his hand.
(222) (Perceiving it) he placed it in a leaf (of a banyan-tree,
It is a eomoaoa belief in India that one who has acquired sufficient
reunions merit, and esjjecdally one wbo gives up his life as an act of devotion,
can obtain rebirth in any state he desires.
This verse Is dimcnlt, and in part textually corrupt. It seems to me
that the words prakrU and ^ikara are used with allusion to their technical
use in the SRahkhya philosophy: prakrti is the primary creative power of
nature, nikara the elements that evolve out of it. The “evolvents” of the
crowd’s speech are here said to he “ not recognizable ” from its delightful
“ primary nature.”
Frame Story: Crows and Owls. — Story 9: Mouse-Maiden.
381
and bathed once more and rinst his mouth and performed the
rites of expiation and the like/^) and set out for home. (223)
And remembering the mouse he thot: ^^It was a cruel thing
that I did in abandoning the little mouse j;hat has lost its father
and mother. (This was sinful of me; because I am now her
guardian.) ’’ (224) So thinking he (returned and) by the power
of his penance changed the mouse into a maiden, (226) and
took her home and gave her to his wife, (who was childless,)
saying: (226) “(My dear,) here is a daughter for you; (take
her and) bring her up carefully.” From that time on she brought
her up and cherisht her fondly, (227) Now when in the course
of time she had reacht the age of twelve, the sage began to
think about her marriage: “It is wrong to let her lime [of
puberty] pass by; for this would be a sin on my part. (And
it is said:)
But if a maiden beholds her flux in her father’s house, un-
married, that maiden is unmarriageable; her parents are con-
^sidered to be iudras.^^ 74.
(228) Therefore I will give her to a (powerful) husband
worthy of herself. (And it is said:)
Only between two persons who are well-matcht in means and
in blood should there be marriage or friendship, but not between
the high and the low.” 75.
(229) With this thot he summoned the venerable Thousand-
rayed [Sun], and said: (230) “You are powerful; marry this
my daughter!” (231) But that venerable god, (the World-
protector,) who sees all things (immediately), replied (to him):
(232) “(Reverend sir,) the clouds are more powerful than I;
they cover me so that I become invisible.” (233) The sage
(said: “That is true!” and) summoning a cloud (be) said:
“ Take my daughter! ” (234) But he said: “ The wind is stronger
even than I. It blows me hither and thither in all directions.”
(236) Then he summoned the wind (also) and said: ^^Take my
daughter!” (236) (Thus addrest) the wind said: “(Reveremd
sir,) the mountains are more powerful than I, since I <i»not
move them (so much aa a finger’s breadth).” (237) 'then he
summoned a mountain and said: ^^Take my daughter!” (2B8)
All this was necessary as pnriEcatioii after touching llie monse.
Members of the lowest caste.
Book HIj War and Peace
He replied t are indeed ‘inamovable,’®^ feiit) the mice are
than we; they make ns full of countless holes (on all
(239) At these words the sage summoned a mouse and
said : Take my daughter (240) Thereupon he said: "‘^ (This is
out ot the question.) How ©an she enter into my hole? ” (241) At
which he said: Very truerV hy ike pow^i^ of his
tomed the;, girl into a mouse again and gaw her to thi iiidnge.
■ ' ; (End of Story 9) '
(242) Therefore I say: “Renouncing the sun as husband’’ &c.
(243) Now [the owl-king] paid no heed to the words of Red-
eye, hut took Long-liyed and went to his own stronghold (, to
the ruin of his tribe). (244) And as Long-lived was being taken
thither he reflected (smiling to himself):
“The one who said that I should be killed, speaking to his
lord^s profit, he is the only one of the ministers here that knows
the true science of polity. 76.
(245) If they had but been willing to listen to him, my hopes
would have been disappointed.” (246) (Now when they reacht the
entrance of the stronghold) Foe-crusher said (to his ministers) :
“ Let Long-lived he granted any place he wishes to live in.”
(247) But Long-lived fixt his residence at the entrance of
the stronghold (, thinking that when the time came he would
easily ©scape). (248) And every day the owls went forth as
they pleased on expeditions of plunder, and (when tixey had
eaten) they brought abundant meat at the command of their
king and gave it to Long-lived. (249) (But that same Red-eye
summoned his kinsmen and said : “ I perceive that we shall
very soon be destroyed because of this crow. Therefore it is
not wise for us to remain in the same place with these fools.
Let us accordingly seek another mountain cave and dwell there
in peace.” So saying Red-eye with all his followers departed to
another place.) (250) Then that (crow) Long-liyed in a short
time regained his strengtix and his plumage, and his body
became handsome as a peacock. And (when he had learned
all about the enemy^ — his strength and prowess, his stronghold
and abiding-place, his weak-points and ways of approach,) he
reflected as follows:
The word “immovable” also means “motmtain” in Sanskrit.
story 9; Mouse-Maiden. — Frame Story; Crows and Owls
383
“I hare spied out their strength and power, and their strong-
hold too, all about it. Now without delay I must bring about
the destruction of our foes,^’ 77.
(251) With these thots, in order to massacre the owls, he
filled the holes at the entrance of their stronghold with rubbish
and set out in haste to Cloud- color. (252) And when Cloud-color
had embraced him eagerly and askt him what had happened,
(253) he said : (My lord,) this is no time for telling my
adventures. (Time is passing swiftly by.) (254) (Therefore) do
you take each one a stick of wood and go; (255) and I will
come and bring fire. (256) And let us (go with all speed and)
burn the (enemies^) home with all (the enemies) in it.’^ (257)
Even so they did, and they put kindling-wood and the like
into the holes that were filled with rubbish and set fire to them.
And straightway all their enemies were destroyed root and
branch at one stroke. (258) And having burned the lair (as
far as the [under-]world of serpents, and having succeeded in
his full desire,) Long-lived reestablisht Cloud-color as king,
with all his powers,^ in that same banyan-tree (, to the sound
of music denoting felicity, well-being and success). (259) Here- .
upon Cloud-color (, seeing that his enemies were overthrown,)
bestowed (all manner of) honors upon Long-lived and in great
joy spoke to him (thus): “Father, how did you spend your
time while you were in the midst of the enemies?
Nay, it is better for those whose deeds are righteous to throw
themselves into flaming fire, than to endure even for a moment
association with an enemy.” 78.
(260) Said he; ‘‘(Sir,)
When danger threatens, a wise mind must follow any way what-
ever, be it great or humble, which may lead to safety. Did not the
Diadem-crowned [Arjuna], woman-fashion, adorn with bracelets
his arms like elephant’s trunks, that could wield mighty weapons
and were markt with the bruises of the bow-string?^® 79.
^ Powers*, ” tlie Sanskrit word is prahrih often meaning king's]
ministers^ but bere probably used in the wider sense fotind in Bonk I,
§ 184, wMob see (with. note).
In this and the following vss reference is made to the YaraouA
humiliations suffered hy the fiye Pavd^^S' brothers, the chief bero^ of the
MahabhSrata, and their, wife DrSupadl. Vss 79 and 81 refer to Aijuna, 80 to
Bhima, 82 to Yudhi^thira, 83 to Nakula and Sahadeva, 84 to DrSnpadL
m
Book M: War and Peace
A wise man, even if h& be powerful, must ever be willing
.to bide bis time, and even to dwell with .mean and evil folk,
as bard to endure as a tbund^r-bolt. Did
BJatma in the bonse of the Matsya[dcing] rub hands with cooks,
and were not Mb bands stained with smoke and wearied with
the toil of handling cooking-spoonS? 80.
Wbateoever action presents itself, be it pleasant or hateful,
an intel%ent man, biding bis time, should put his heart into
it and do it, when he has fallen upon adversity. Did not the
Deft-handed [Arjuna] wear a [woman^s] jingling girdle, donned
in sport, tho his arms had been [at other times] busy with the
clanging strokes of the broad, tremulous bow-string of Gapdiva
[Arjuna's bow]? 81.
A wise man who desires success, even tho he be full of
courage and prowess, should put aside his dignity and stand
carefully watching his step in the situations ordained by fate.
The illustrious son of Dharma [Yudhisthira] was served with
respect by his brothers who were like [Indra] the king of
the gods, [Kubera] the god of wealth, and [Yam a] the god of
, death,' yet did he not for a long time carry in his distress the
[brahman’s] triple staff? 82.
The two sons of MadrI [Nakula and Sahadeva] possest beauty
and nobility, and were endowed with the highest qualities; yet
they entered into the service of Virata as herds of bis kine
and horses. 83.
Draupadl was blest witii unexcelled beauty, with the fine
q^ualities of youth, and with birth in a noble family; she was
like [the goddess of] Fortune herself. Yet by the power of
Fate the lapse of time brought her to the point, you know,
of pounding sandalwood-paste for a long period in the palace
of the Matsya king, under the haughty and insolent orders of
girls who called her ‘serving-maid.’” 84.
(261) Oloud-color said: “Like the task of [standing on] the
blade of a sword (I ween) is associajdon with an enemy.”
Said he : “ (Sire,) that is true. (And yet :)
When a wise man finds himself shorn of power, he
bears it without betraying his feelings, acting like a friend,
biding his time, and covering his weakness with [pretended]
-affection. 85.
Frame Story: Crows and Owls
386
(262) (Now to put it briefly,) never before have I seen such
a collection of fools, except Red-eye alone. But he understood
quite correctly what was in my heart. The others however
were ministers in name alone. What use had they^ who did
hot know this? —
A servant that has come over from the enemy, and that is
eager to dwell with his [former] foes, is spoiled for use by
the constant uneasiness [which he causes]; for it is like living
with a serpent 86.
Dangerous even to a much later time is a failing that can
cause total destruction; it is like the malady that comes to the
silk-cotton tree from the dove that has eaten the seeds of the
fig or banyan tree.^*^ 87.
Poes find occasion to strike at their foes— if they are not
careful in regard to things both seen and unseen — when they
are sitting or lying down or on the march, or when occupied
with eating and drinking. 88.
/ Therefore a wise man must carefully guard himself, as the
abiding-^place of the ^ group of three For carelessness brings
destruction. 89, (And this has been well said:)
Being ill-advised, who can escape faults of policy? Eating
unwholesome food, who is not tormented by diseases? Who is
not made insolent by good fortune? Who can escape the blow
of death? Who is not afflicted by sensuality due to women? 90.
An arrogant man loses his renown; a dishonest man, his
friend; one that ignores the holy rites, his family; a man that
is too eager for worldly success, his religion; a vicious man
the frute of learning; a miser loses happiness; and a king
whose ministers are careless loses his kingdom. 91.
Fire waxes strong in dry kindling-wood, affliction in fOote,
anger in the capricious, love in the handsome, wisdom in the
intelligent, righteousness in the compassionate, fortitude in the
noble. 92,
mieaoiag that tla-e feeds ef ntsfeef a*0. He
j^lipqaremeiit of the dove upon the silk’-cotton tree, ajid there eprout, canirin^
the destruction of the latter. This alleged occurrence is alluded to elsewhere
in Indian litoraturo.
The three objects of human desire (see page 272, noie a6
“ abide in ” or depend on oneself.
Or, » doll.”
Edgerton, Pa&catatjtnv. 11,
26
Book ni: War and Peace
^6
(S63) ’Now, 0 king, yoti said very truly that to endure
with foes is like the task of [standing on] the blade
of a sword. (Ton show that you are wise.) However:
'A wise mail, to aecomplish his end, may even carry his foe
on his shoulder. The cobra carried the frogs and. so destroyed
them^^ 9®,
($64) Said the other: “(And) ho’w was that?’’ Long-lived
■saidr : ' ' ‘ /
STORY JO: FROGS RIDE SERPENT
(265) Once there was a certain aged cobra named Weak-
venom. (266) He took thot with himself thus: “ How can I
Eve comfortably in this manner of life? “ (267) Then lie went
to a pond where there were many frogs, and took his seat
there making himself appear as if overwhelmed with grief. (268)
Now as he sat thus a frog in the water askt him: (Uncle,)
why do you not look around for food today as you used to? ”
(269) Said he: “My friend, how could I have any desire for
food, wretch that I am? (And this is the reason.) (270) Last
night (as I was looking around for food right early in the
evening) I caught sight of a frog, and drew myself up ready
to Spring on him and catch him. (271) But he (saw mo, and
ia f^ of death) fled away into the midst of a group of brahmans
(who were busily engaged in reciting holy texts); and I could
not make out where he had gone. (272) And I bit a (certain)
brahman’s son in the toe, being mfeled by its resemblance to
a frog; (273) (whereupon) he died on the spot. (274) His father
(was overcome with* grief and) curst me f, saying): (275)
^Wretch! Since you have bitten my son, who never did you
any harm, because of this crime you shall become a vehicle
for frogs to ride on. (276) And you shall obtain for your
sustenance [only] what their grace allows you.’ (277) So I have
come for you to ride upon me.” (278) (And that frog told this
to all the others.) At this they were overjoyed, and they all
went and told it to the frog-king, whose name was Web-foot.
(279) Whereupon he (too, with all his ministers), considering
it a remarkable thing, came in great excitement and climbed
out of the pond and mounted on the serpent’s hack, with in-
finite contentment. (280) (And after him in turn the others
Frame Story: Crows and Owls. “Story 10: Pro^a ride Serpent 387
seated themselves in order of rank; and some who could not
find room ran along behind.) (281) But Weak-venom displayed
many kinds of different motions (, all to further his own interests).
(282) Now Web-foot said (as soon as he came in contact witli
the serpent):
Travelling on Weak-venom suits me better than on an
elephant or a chariot or a horse, or on a man-drawn car or a
boat.” 94.
(283) Now on the next day Weak-venom made a pretense of
exhaustion. And Web-foot said- to him: “ (Friend,) why do you
di'aw me so very slowly today (and not as you did before)?”
(284) Said he: ^^Sire, because of lack of food I have not the
strength to carry you (today as I formerly did).” (285) (There-
upon) he said: ” (Friend,) eat [some of] the little frogs.” (286)
Said he: “I wanted to do that myself, but I cannot eat except
by grace of Your Majesty’s orders; thus my life depends upon
you.” (287) Then he received permission; and thenceforth he
gradually devoured the frogs, as many as he liked. (288) (And
in a very few days he renewed his strength.) And with deep
satisfaction he smiled to himself, and said:
*^By a trick I have got for myself manifold food, in the
frogs. How long a time before they will be all gone, witli me
eating them! ” 95,
(289) Now (when) Web-foot (heard this his suspicions were
aroused, and wondering what he was saying, he) askt him:
What did you say? ” (290) (At which) the serpent (to conceal
Ms expression) replied: “ (Nothing.” And when he again charged
him [to speak], he said: ‘^My lord,) this is what I said:
Let a man never allow himself to be blasted by the curse
of a brahman! Better is the state of a mountain-crag or a tree
struck hy the scorching blast of lightning,” 96.
(291) So in spite of all these things Web-foot failed utterly
to understand (, because his mind was misled by these Mse
words). (292) (To put it briefly,) that serpent devoured wery
one of them, so that not #o mti'Ch as titeAeed of th>em'lrat'lb&'
‘(ilnt' of
(293) Therefore I say: [A wise man, to accomplish his
end,] may even carry his foe on his shoulder ” &c. (294) “ So,
Edgerton, Paficatantra. II. 26
Book III: W^r and Peace
0 kiag, ©Ten as Weak-venom destroyed the frogs, thus I also
destroyed (all) our enemies. (And so:)
A fire <diat blazes up in the forest burns, but spares the
roots^ while a flood of water, mild and cooling Iho it is, tears
up [the trees] roots tod all.’^ 97.
(f95) Oloud'color said: That is ferue. (And
This is the greatness of great into who wear the ornaments
of good policy, that they turn not from what they hare under-
taken eren when serious trouble arises. 98,
(396) * Thus it is that you. Sir, have brought about complete
destruction of our enemies/^ Said he: '^Sire, so it is. (And it
is said:)
A remnant of debt, a remnant of fire, a remnant of disease
likewise, and a remnant of the foe— these a wise man should
blot out utterly, learing no remnant. By so doing he shall not
fail 99,
(397) Sire, you are a favorite of fortune (more than others).
Everything that is undertaken on your behalf succeeds. And
again:
One should join the strong with the skillful, and the skillful
with the quick and energetic. Both of these shall prosper i£
tiiey keep their outlay moderate. 100.
If a man he self-coutrolled, truthful, wise, and resolute, is
there aught ihat can stay out of the reach of such a man? 101.
Whose heart does not sink when troubles arise and is not
over-glad in success, who controls his anger and shows for-
bearance, and knows the time to exert himself, who conceals
scandals wiii care and is watchful of weak points, — fortune
rests in the hands of a man of such behavior whose mind is
disciplined. 102.
^ Who am I? What are the present time and place, and what
good or evil qualities are in evidance? Who are my enemies,
tod who my allies? What power have I? What means of carry-
ing out a useful plan? What store of good fortune have I?
What continuance of prosperity? And what should be my reply
if my words are rejected? ’ Good men who fix their minds thus
steadfastly on success are not disappointed. 103.
(298) Therefore prowess (by itself) alone will not bring the
supreme desire to fruition. And it is said:
Frame Story: Crows and Owls
389
For foes that are killed with weapons are not killed, but
those that are killed hj wit are really killed and never appear
again. A weapon kills only a man^s body; wit destroys his tribe
and his power and his renown. 104.
An arrow shot by an archer naay kill a single man, or it
may not. A clever device launcht by a clever man may destroy
a kingdom along with the king, 105.
(299) So if a man be (thus) attended by [the favor of] fate
(and by manly endeavor), all his actions easily succeed. Since:
His wit comes into play at once when he undertakes an
action; his presence of mind is steadfast; riches come to him
of their own accord; his plans go not awry; he achieves com-
plete fruition, and so — is it surprising? — he attains high station;
and he takes delight in deeds of renown: such is the man of
destiny! 106.
(300) Therefore kingship is for him tliat has liberality, wisdom,
and valor. And it is said:
To a man who is liberal, brave, and wise, people attach
themselves, and these people are his subordinates^®. To him
who has subordinates^® comes wealth; from wealth, distinction;
to the distinguisht man authority, and from that kingship.” 107.
(301) Cloud-color said: ‘‘Father, the science of polity shows
its benefits quickly; for you by your politic course found access
to the owl-king Foe-crusher and destroyed him with all his
followers.” Long-lived said: “ Sire,
Even if your purpose can only be attained by resorting to
violent means, it is well first to show humility. A princely tree
with lofty top, Ae noblest product of the forest, is not felled
until homage has been paid to it. 108.
(302) But, my lord, what profit is there in words which in
the outcome lead to no (opportunity for) action? Well has it
been said:
Words spoken by irresolute men, afraid of exertion, whose
only interest is to amuse tliemselves with random prattle, lead
to disappointment in fiie r»^ul^ and beeome tlie objeiilal of
ridicule in the world, 109.
(303) (And wise men should not neglect even matters of
slight importance. Because:)
Or, punningly, “ qualities.”
26’*'
Book III: War and Peace
(* I sliall be able to do this ; it is a slight matter and easy
to it requires no care I ’ So some men look upon their
duties 5 and thru the blindness of negligence they fall into the
agony of grief, which comes quickly when a mishap occurs. 110.)
(304) Now today my lord’s enemies are overtlirown, so that
he will be able to sleep in peace m of old. (Al&d
said ;)
(In a house that contains no serpent or in which the serpents
hawe been killed one can sleep in peace. But where a serpent
has been S€^n and has escaped, it is hard to find sleep. 111.)
(Until they have finisht the performance of exalted deeds
that rexjuire long-continued exertions, but that are blest by the
benedictious of their loved ones; that demand the height of
skill and prowess, but that win for them the place of their
desire; — until such time Bow can men that are impassioned
wifih ambition, pride, and enterprise find room for contentment
in their impatient hearts? 112.)
(305) Now because I have brought to completion the work
I had begun, my spirit seems to find rest. (How so?)
As a heart that is freed from fever, as a body that has cast
off a heavy burden is lighter, so the spirit becomes lighter
when one has crost a sea [of troubles] by accomplishing his
vowed purpose upon his foe. 113.
(306) So now that your enemies have been destroyed, devote
yourself to the protection of your subjects, and enjoy for long
this kingdom, in the majestyof your throne with its parasol
fimly establisht in succession to your children and children’s
children. And also:
A king who does not delight his subjects with protection
and other benefits — his name has no more use than the [false]
teat on the neck of tihe she-goat. 114.
(The king that loves virtues, dei^ises vices, and takes delight
in good policy, shall long enjoy the royal majesty that is
clothed with the firm-fixt chowrie^^ and adorned with the white
parasoL"^^ 116.)
(307) And you must not delude yourself with the pride of
good fortune, thinking * I have got possession of the kingdom.’
And that for this reason, because tlie fortunes of kings are
Emblems of royalty.
Frame Story: Crows and Owls
391
undependable. (How so?) The Fortune of kingship is apt to
fall the moment she is mounted, as a bamboo reed that is
dimbed. (Like quicksilver) she is hard to hold even by (end-
less) effort. However earnestly you pursue her favor, she betrays
you in the end. Like a prince of the apes, she is fickle in her
changing humors. Like a streak of water on the petal of a
water-lily, there is no clinging to her. She is unsteady as the
course of the wind, undependable as alliance with the ignoble,
inaccessible to kindness as (the race of) vipersj (she glows but
for a moment, as the streak of clouds at twilight;) she is
perishable in her very nature, as a row of bubbles in the
water; (she shows no gratitude for what is done for her, as
the nature of the body;) she vanishes the moment she is seen,
as a mass of riches that one gets in a dream. (In short:)
(No sooner has a king been installed in his kingdom, than
he must turn his mind to [threatening] evils. For the vessels
[of holy water] used at the time of the coronation pour out
upon the king disasters along with the water. 116.)
(308) (And there is no man whatsoever that is not liable to
misfortunes. And it is said:)
When one reflects on Rama’s banishment, the humiliation of
Bali, the dwelling in the forest of the sons of Paipdu, the
destruction of the Vr§p.is, King Nala’s loss of his kingdom, the
dwarf-existence of Visnu, and the slaying of Arjuna, and [what
happened to Ravana,] the Lord of Ceylon, — [it is clear that]
man undergoes all [that befalls him] by the power of Destiny,
and none can save any one from it. 117.
(Whither has gohe Daiaratha, the friend of the King of the
Gods, who fought in heaven? Whither has gone King Sagara,
who controlled the sea’s flood? Whither the son of Vena, that
sprang from the palm of [his father’s] hand? Whither Manu,
the Sun’s flesh and blood? Has not almighty Time [Destiny],
that first opened their eyes, now closed them? 118.)
King, ministers, fair houris, parks and pleasure-gardens,
lamented by men of olden time — all, all alike hai^e been devoured
by the jaws of
Learning is the adonun&nt o£ the mind;, tiee of foify, faS&h
of an elephant, water of a river, the moon of night, ascetic con-
templation of resolute character, and good policy of kingship. 120.
393
Book III: War and Peace
^ Joy is dostroyod by disappointmeiit, tbe autumn by the
ognaag of -wiuter, darkness by the sun, a kind deed by in-
gratitude, grief by a pleasant occurrence, disasters by good
policy, and fortune, however magnificent it may he, by bad
policy. 131.
(809) 'Hub a Hng who prtvides liis subjie&ts wilh thfe blessings
of wise (Munsol thfa his good policy (in all respects), enjoys
the blesirags of royalty.’’
Qetfl emda iie HiW Book, ealW War ajid Peace (or the Crowe and flieOwlsj.
BOOK IV
THE LOSS OF ONE’S GETTINGS,
OR, THE APE AND THE CROCODILE
(1) No^ here begins this, the fourth book, called the Loss
of One’s Gettings; of which this is the opening stanza:
Whosoever is beguiled by soft words into giving up a thing
that he has got, is deceived just as the foolish crocodile was
by the ape. 1.
(2) The king’s sons said: ‘‘How was that?” Vi^iQiuSarman
said:
(3) On a (certain) seashore once dwelt an ape-king named
Wrinkle-face. (4) And because he had become weak with old
age, another ape, who was young and vigorous, (became in-
flamed in his heart with the fire of jealousy, and in his im-
patience) raised a revolt against him and drove him out of his
own herd (, so that he was spending his time in exile). (5) On
this (same) shore there was a fig-tree named Honey-filled. The
old ape lived by eating its fruits. (6) Now once as he was
eating them a fig fell from his hand into the water. (7) And
as it fell (into the water) it made an agreeable splash. (8) When
the ape heard it he began to pluck off (other) figs again and
again and to throw them down one by one, because he was
idle and silly by nature and they delighted his ear. (9) Now
it happened that a crocodile named Scrawny was passing below
him, and he caught those figs and ate them (to his heart’s
content). (10) So he remained (on the spot) in order to get
the sweet food. (11) And Wrinkle-face formed an affectionate
^attachnn'ent for Mm,' ao., that he fiorg# even'life exilo’ftoni|vtite;'
herd. (12) The crocodile^e heart was affected with great
love for him, so that he put off the time of returning to hiB
home. (13) Now his wife, among her women-friends, was grieved
at heart because of the long separation from him [and said]:
894 Book IT : The Loss of Ome’s Gettia^s
Wketa is he, my beloved? What is he doing away from home
that interests him so greatly? And he stays a very long time
today. He wrongs himself by neglecting the ^gronp of three ’h”
(14) Then one of her women-friends said; How mn yon have
either home kh* wealth from sneh a hiisbandi when ydn do not
laiow what he is abont? (15) ^xit 1 saw him (with nijr own
eyes) in a place on the seashore amnsing himself in secref with
some she^ape or other, and showing the greatest auction for
her. (16) Know this therefore, and do without delay what needs
to be done.’^ (IT) And hearing this the crocodile’s wife (was
ov^reome with grief, and she gave up all her household duties,
and wearing soiled garments), anointing her body with oil,
(threw herself on her bed and) lay tossing her limbs about
r^tlessly, while her women-friends stood about her. (18) But
when the crocodile, after overstaying his time because of his
love for Wrinkle-face, returned to his house, he found his wife
in this state, and in great distress of mind he inquired: “What
is the cause of this illness of hers? ” (19) But not one of her
women-friends would say a word ( j they all held their peace).
He askt again and again with great insistence. (20) Finally
one of them (who was like a second self to the crocodile’s
wife, showing signs of the deepest emotion,) said: (21) “(Sir,)
this illness of hers is incurable. (We must consider that) she
is (surely) lost (this veiy day). There is no cure for her.” (22)
Searmg this the creeodile was overwhelmed with grief, and
(in his great love for his wife) he said: (28) ‘Mf there is any
r^edy for her^ even at foe cost of my own life, let this life
of mine be used for her sake.” (24) She replied: (Sir,) there
is one and only one remedy for her malady. If an ape’s heart
could be provided, then she would live. (Otherwise she is utterly
lost) This is a secret known to us women.” (25) At this he
reflected (to himself): “(What is fois woe that has befallen
me!) How can I get an ape’s heart except from Wrfokle-jEaoe?
But that would he (most villainous and) wicked. And yet:
Should a wife take first place, or a friend that excels in
nobility? Surely as between wife and friend the wife comes
first. 2.
^ The objects of human desire; see page 272, note 4.
Frame Story: Ape and Crocodile
395
Thru her the ' group of throe is won completely; thru her
[are won] friends, thru her renown. The whole world depends
on her; so who would not rate her highly? ” 3.
(26) In great perplexity he reflected again;
‘‘ My one and only beloved friend, who has done so much
for me and is full of noble qualities, must be slain for the sake
of a woman! Woe has befallen me! 4.
(27) Meditating thus, (while his heart resisted his going,) he
set out very slowly towards Wrinkle-face. (28) Perceiving him
(coming slowly), the ape said: ‘^My friend, what is the cause
of your delay® today?” (29) Said he: (Friend,) I will tell
you what grieves me. I cannot enjoy your company so much,
for this reason: tho you have been showing me nothing but
kindness for this long time, I have not been able to do you
even the slightest favor in return. And likewise:
Men cleave unto friendship because of self-interest. But you,
0 noblest of apes, show unselfish affection. 5.
(30) And yet, this saying fits you very well:
To benefit those to whom one owes no benefits, to do kind-
nesses, to be mindful of favors done, and to raise tho fallen —
this is characteristic of the noble.” 6.
(31) The other replied: Why, surely this is a benefit (that
cannot be surpast): while I have been exiled from my land
and my kinsmen, I have found a refuge with you, because of
the friendship that has sprung up between us, and am spending
my time in (peace and) comfort. (Well has this been said:)
Who created this two-syllabled jewel called ^ comrade,’ which
saves from grief, discontent, and danger, and is a vessel of
love and trust? ” 7.
(32) The crocodile said:
^‘Wliat greater friendship can there be than this, that in-
cludes meeting [your friend’s] wife, eating peacefully in [his]
house, and telling secrets? 8.
(33) Now I have not brought you to my house, presented
'#r:giT6li ydti to; eat 'from my 'dish.”
* See preceding page, note 1.
® Or possibly distraction [of mind];” this is the more ustial meaning of
the Sanskrit word {vylk§epa), but the versions nearly all agree on the sense
of “ delay.”
Book IV; Tke Loss of One’s Gettings
ape replied: (What o£ that? Such is the frieudehip of common
folk. And
A base man tiiay show you hfe wife, bM before actors, on the
i^age* Oattle are fed, so that means hothirig at ail. for it is
the Tory nature of the nohle^ and requires no effort in them,
to 4o good to those witih whom they associate.’^ 9.
(85) Said the other:.' " —
** What wonder is it if a righteous man honors the wise and
virtuous? It would he strange only if a base-born man did so;
that, would be like coolness in the sun^s orb. 10, And yet:
One should not oyerwlielm a friend or kinsman with an ex-
ce^ of affection. A cow repulses her own calf with the tip of
her horn when he tries to drink too much. 11.
(86) (Tlierefore,) my friend, (I also have a return favor to
offer you.) My house is on a lovely island in the midst of the
sea. Trees like the heavenly Tree of Wishes grow there, [with
fruits] that taste like nectar. So do you climb on ^ my back and
visit my home.” (37) At this speech the ape was greatly pleased,
and said: “Very good, my friend; this pleases me much. Take
me there quickly! ” (38) Then that crocodile took upon his
back the ape, all unsuspecting and subject to impending doom;
aad ss he went along he reflected: “ Alas!
This business of women is exceedingly grievous, and yet it
10 the cream of life. For the sake of a woman I am committing
Mb horrible crime, much as I condemn it. 12. (And what of this?)
<5old is proved by a touchstone; a man is said to be proved
by his conduct in business; an ox is proved by a burden; but
there is no known way of proving women. 13.
(39) (So for a woman sake I must murder my friend.)
As the crocodile was speaking thus the ape said to him:
** What are you saying?” Said he: ^‘Nothing.” Then, because
he would not tell him, the ape became uneasy, and reflected:
(40) What can be the reason of this, that the crocodile makes
no answer to my question? (Now I will draw out his secret
purpose by craft.)” (41) So thinking he once more questioned
him very urgently. He replied: ‘'My wife is afflicted with an
incurable illness (and that is why I am sad).” The ape said;
” Cannot anything be done for her recovery by physicians or
sorcerers’ spells? ” The crocodile replied: ” We have askt them
Frame Story: Ape and Crocodile
397
too, and they said that she cannot live except by an ape’s heart.”
(42) When the ape heard this he gave himself up for lost, and
reflected to himself: Alas, (I am undone;) I am suffering the
consequence of being a slave to sensual enjoyments, in spite
of my age. And is it not said? —
Even in forest-life vices control men that are subject to passions;
control of the five senses, tho one live in liis house, is ascetic
austerity. For the man who has forsaken his passions, who does
nothing blameworthy, his own house is a penance-grove.” 14.
(43) Meditating thus he said to the crocodile: “Friend, you
have not done well. (If this is the case, then) why did you not
tell me in the first place? I left my heart behind there when
I came along. I should have come bringing it. And it is said:
Whosoever desires the three-fold benefits of religion, worldly
success, and love, should not come empty-handed to see a
bi’afiman, a king, or a woman.” 15.
(44) Said the other: “Where is that heart of yours? ” The
ape replied: “ On that same fig-tree. (45) It is well known that
apes always keep their hearts on trees. (46) If you have any
use for it, let us return and get my heart and then come.”
(47) When the crocodile heard this he was glad, and turned
about, and made for the shore. (48) (Then) the ape (in great
delight) sprang up eagerly and climbed upon a branch (of the
fig-tree and sat there, thinking : “ Ho ! My life is saved after
all!”). (49) (But) the crocodile (down below) said: “Friend,
bring along your heart and come quickly.” (50) He replied
(with a laugh): “I shall not come again! (I understood the
whole business; what I said was meant to trick you.) Get you
gone, fool! Is the heart ever found outside of the body?
By craft you hoped to kill me; I have used counter- craft.
And by deluding you I have saved myself from death.” 16.
(51) (And when the crocodile realized what he had in mind,
he said: “ Friend, even without your heart, come along anyway;
I will cure her disease by using some other remedy.” The
^';%i''said.:} (55}'“ Yillain, I am nofan :ass!
When he had come and goiae again, and after going had
come hack once more, the fool that had neither ears nor heart
met his death on the spot.” 17.
(53) Said the other: “ (And) how was that? ” The ape said:
Book IT : Tke Loss of One’s Gettings
STORY 1: ASS WITHOUT HEART AKD EARS
(54) la a (certaia) forest-region dwelt a lioa* (66) (And) he
had a certain jacfcal for his atten^nt. (56)' this Koa was
once attackt by a stomacli-troublo and lost his power to do
anything. (57) (And) when the jackaPs throat had grown lean
with hunger he said to him; “ Sire, how can we live thus
doing nothing?" (58) Said he: Friend, this disease of. mino
cin he cured only by the remedy of an ass^s heart and ears^
and in no other way. (59) Therefore bend all your efforts to
bringing me an ass," He replied: “As my lord commands."
(60) So speaking he departed; and when he had found an ass
hdon^ng to a washerman in the neighborhood of a town, he
said to him: (61) “ (Friend,) why are you so lean? " (62) He
relied: “ (My friend,) 1 live by carrying every day a great
lo^ (of clothes), and [yet] this villain [of a washerman] does
not give me enuf to eat." (63) Said he: “Why let yourself be
tormented thus? I will take you to a place where you will
think yourself in heaven!” (64) He said: “Tell me, how?"
(65) Said the other: “In this stretch of woods (full of emerald-
green grass, thru which a river flows,) there are three beautiful
^he-asses such as you never saw before, blooming with the
freshness of youth, and I think they have run away because
they were weary of the same troubles that you suffer. I will
brli^ you to them," (66) (And) hearing this he agreed, saying
“ J>o so! " And he brought him (, the fool,) into the presence
of the lion. (67) And when he saw the ass (within reach of
his paws), the lion was rejoist and (sprang up and) leapt upon
him. But because of his weakness the ass (managed to get
away and turned and) fled (without looking back), his heart
smitten with terror, (68) Then the jackal said to the lion:
“(Weill) is that the best tort ©t ^ Mow yon. can deliver? If
you cannot to much 'as kill an 'att' •(#!);«. he m brought heiore
you), how can you expect to conquer your rivals? " (69) He
replied: “(Undoubtedly!) But just bring him back again, and
this time I will kill him." (70) Said he: “Be ready (for him),
that he may not escape again in the same way when I bring
him back by my power of wit, in spite of his having felt your
prowess!" And (with a laugh) he departed. (71) Going up to
Story 1 : Ass without Heart and Ears. — Frame Story: Ape and Crocodile 399
the ass he said: “Why did you turn back?” (72) Said he:
“ (A terrible thing happened to me!) Some sort o£ creature
(as big as a mountain-peak; I know not what it was,) fell upon
me, so that I ran away from it (barely saving my life).” (73)
He replied: “You did not understand! (And it is said:)
It generally happens in this world that when men are seeking
the * group of three ’ \ hindrances that really do not exist arise
out of their own imagination. 18.
(74) When that she-ass saw you she (was stirred with great
lust and) started to^ embrace you passionately. (And you were
such a coward that you fled.) But she could not bear to be
without you, and as you fled she put out her arm to stop you;
that was all there was to it. So come back! ” (75) Hearing this
the ass said: “ I will come with you.” (So saying,) (76) he
was led back (again by the jackal), and the lion caught him
and killed him. (77) (Then after he had killed him) the lion
said: “ (Friend,) the rule for applying the remedy is this, that
it is apj^lied after worship of the gods and other rites. (Only
then does it have its effect.) Wherefore do you (stay here quietly
and) watch until I have bathed and performed the daily sacred
rites and come back.” (78) (With these words ho departed.)
And when the lion had gone the jackal; thinking “ It must
be an excellent physic!”, (and being very greedy, himself) ate
the heart and ears (of the ass). (79) (And when he had eaten
them he wiped his mouth and paws clean and waited. And
having bathed) the lion came back and (made the formal turn
to the right [about the body] and) failed to find the heart and
ears. And he said: (80) “ (What has happened here? Tell mC;)
where are his heart and ears?” (81) The jackal said: “(My
lord,) how could this fool have had heart ^ or ears? (Surely)
if he had had heart or ears, would he have acted thus? —
^When he had come and gone again,’ &c.” (82) (At this) the
lion was silent,
. (End of Story 1)
(83) “ Therefore I say: 1 am not an ash! (So) get yoii gone;
you cannot trick me (again).
* See page 394, note 1, ei pcLasim.
® The Hindus regard the heart as the seat of the intelligence.
400
Book IV j The Lose of One’s OetUngs
You first attempted your purpose with crafty words, but I
pereeiTed it thru tfie faults of your wit, carefully bidden tho
they Were, aud I also took a l«ou from your over-excessive
cleverness and gained time by crafty words. Like Has met
like! 19. And this is well said:
Assuredly tbe very slips of judgment that orte makes may
serve to enlighten the judgment They cure l&e
telligent men who know the truth, like cxccllGut medicines.'^ SO.
(84) Then tlie crocodile said to Wrinkle-face, his mind being
impr^t with bis skillful wit:
‘^ The wise proclaim tbeir own folly, but laud the wisdom
of others; however, in whatever they undertake, their efforts
never fail.^’ 21.
(85) So saying, witli disappointed hopes, he went to his own
abode.
Here ends the Fourth Book, called the l/oss of One’s Getting^s.
BOOK V
HASTY ACTION, OR, THE BRAHMAN AND THE
MONaOOSE
(1) Now here begins this, the fifth book, called Hasty Action;
of which this is, the opening stanza:
Whosoever, without knowing the true facts of the case, yields
to the sway of wrath, soon loses his friend, as the brahman
the mongoose. 1.
(2) The king^s sons said: (And) how was that? ” Visi^u^ar-
man said:
(3) In the Gau(Ja-country there dwelt a (certain) brahman
(of good family) named Deva^armanh (4) (And) his wife was
(a brahman- woman) named Yajnadatta^. (5) (One time) she con-
ceived (as a result of former good deeds). (6) And when
Deva^arman perceived this he was (greatly) rejoist, (and re-
flected thus: ^‘A great blessing has come upon me, for I shall
get a child!’’), and he said to his wife: (7) “ (My dear,) your
hopes are gratified. You shall bear a son, and all my desires
shall bo fulfilled in him, and I shall perform all the sacred
rites for him, the rites of (conception,) birth, name-giving, and
so on. (And) he shall be the support of my house.” (8) (Thus
addrest) his wife said: Who knows whether it will be a boy
or not? (Therefore) it is not fitting to speak thus of something
that is unknown. One should not rejoice too soon. And it is said:
A man who wants to dream about the future will find himself
lying on the ground all whitened, like Soma4arman’s father.” 2.
(9) Said he: ^‘(And) how was that? ” She replied:
SfdEY 1; THE BRAHMAN WHO BUM AIR-OASTHBS
(10) There was a certain feraAmto’s son who was plying Ms
studies, (11) He received sacrificial offerings (of food) in the
^ God-fleli^bt ” or “ God-help.”
^ “Sacrifice-given.”
402
Book Vj Hasty Action
Kou&e of a certain merchant. (12) (And) whep. he did not eat
there, he received a measure of grits. This he fdok home and
pEt it in a jar and sayed it And so in the cotirs© of a long
time this jar of hm became full of gritsj. (13) One time the
brahman -wm lying on his bed underneath that jar, trhich he
had hung on a wall-peg, having taken a nap in tiie day-time
(and waked up again), and he was meditating thus j (14) Very
high is the price of (grain, and still liigher grits, which are)
food all prepared. So I must have grits worth as much as
twenty rupees. (15) And if I sell them I can get as many as
ten she-goats (worth two rupees apiece). (16), And when they
are six months old they will bear young, and their offspring
(will) also (bring forth). (17) And after five years they will be
very numerous, as many as four hundred. (18) (And it is
commonly reported that) for four she-goats you can get a cow
(t!^at is young and rich in milk, and that has all the best
qualities, and that brings forth live calves). So I shall trade
those same she-goats for a hundred cows. (19) And when they
calve some of their offspring will be bullocks, and with them
I shall engage in farming and raise a plenty of grain. (20) From
the sale of the grain I shall get much gold, and I shall build
a beautiful mansion (of bricks), enclosed hy walls. (21) And
some worthy brahman, when he sees what a great fortune I
have, with abundance of men-servants and maid-servants and
ah sorts of goods, will (surely) give me his beautiful daughter
[to wife]. (22) And (in the course of time) 1 shall beget on her
body a boy that shall maintain my line; strengthened by the
merit I have acquired, he shall be long-lived and free from
disease. (23) (And when I have performed for him the bii'th-
rite and other ceremonies in prescribed fashion,) I shall give
him the name of Somaiarman^. (24) (And while the boy is
running about) my wife will be busy with her household duties
at the time when the cows come home, and will (be very care-
less and) pay no heed to tlie lad. (25) (Then, because my heart
is completely mastered by love for the boy,) I shall (brandish
a cudgel and) beat my wife with my cudgel.” (26) So (in his
reverie) he brandisht his cudgel and struck that jar, so that
it fell down (broken) in a hundred pieces all over himself
^ Moon-deliglit ” or “ Moon-help.”
story 1: BraUman who built Air-Oastles* — Frame Story. 403
(, and the grits were scattered). Then that hrahman^s body
was all whitened by the powdered grits, and he felt as if
awakened out of a dream and was greatly abasht (, and the
people laught at him).
(End of Story 1)
(27) Therefore I say: (You ought not) * to dream about tlie
future.’ (When the eyent has been disclosed you can act upon
it.) You cannot paint a picture until you haye the panel.” (28)
Now when the time (of birth) arriyed, the brahman’s wife
brought forth a son (bearing the auspicious marks). (29) (Then)
on the tenth day after the birth (when he had performed the
rite [of name-giying]) the brahman’s wife left the boy in his
father’s care and (arose and) went to a (near-by) river to
purify herself (and to wash her soiled garments), (30) (But) the
brahman kept watch over the boy (, since he was so poor that
he could not afford a servant and did his own work). (31) Now
as it was a day of the moon’s change, the chief queen sent
from the king’s palace a maid-servant to bring a reader of
sacred texts, and she called upon the brahman. (32) When the
brahman received tlie summons^ (as he had suffered from poverty
all his life long,) he thot: (33) ^‘If I do not go at once, some
one else will get the sacrifice^. There is no one to watch the
boy. What shall I do?” (34) (Under these circumstances) he
left behind a mongoose that he had raised just like a son, keep-
ing him in his house (in the room where the sacred fire was
k^pt and feeding him on kernels of corn and the like), and so
(tS% V brahman) departed. (36) But the mongoose soon saw a
cobra coming out of a hole in the ground and going up near
the child, (36) And as soon as he saw it (his eyes flamed with
anger, and his lips^ teeth, and paws quivered, and) he sprang
up at once and fell upon the serpent and tore it to pieces. (37)
And when he saw the brahman coming back, he ran forth witli
great joy to show him [what he had done], with his mouth and
paws (still) stained with blood. (38) Now when that hasty brah-
man saw the mongoose with his muzzle smeared with blood, he
thot: (Wliat!) has he eaten my boy? ” and he slew him with
^ Specifically, irUddha-o^ering (to deceast ancestors), performed bn the
days of the moon’s change, to the accompaniment of Vedio recitations.
Book; V ! Hasty Aotion
404
& stidk (39) Thereupon, (haring killed him,) as soon as the
hfahniati entered the house, he saw the child lying; asleep and
unh-urt (just ^ be was),; and the eohra cut to pieces (near him),
(40) Axii he heat Ms breast,: crying out; woe fe me, un-
happy wretch! Tfhat a wicked thing (is this that) T have done!
(41) And when his wife came back (and found the brahman
weeping) and saw the mongoose slain and the serpent cut iuto
(a hundred) pieces, she said (to the brahman): What does this
(, Mihman, and how did it happen)? ” (42) (Whereupon)
tho brahman told her the whole story. And the (prudent) wife
(was deeply distrest and) said (to tho brahman):
What is not rightly seen, not rightly understood, not rightly
heard, and not rightly investigated, should not be done, by any
man—as was done by the barber.’’ 3.
(43) Said he: (And) how was that? ” She replied:
STORY 2: THE BARBER WHO KILLED THE MONKS
(44) There was (in) a certain (city a) merchant’s son (of old),
who had lost his wealth, his kinsfolk, and his fortune, and was
ground down by poverty. (Attended by his old nurse he had
lived since childhood in a part of a broken-down dwelling, and)
he bad been brought up by his old nurse (, a slave-woman).
(45) ([Once] early in the evening) he meditated, sighing a long
(md earnest) sigh: ‘^Alas, when will there be an end to this
{my] pover^? As he pondered thus he foil as^leep; and it was
night (46) And (towards morning) he saw a dream. Three
monks came and (woke him and) said to him: “Friend, to-
morrow we shall come to visit you in this same form. (For [we
are] three heaps of treasure stored away by your forefathei^,)
and when you slay us witli a cudgel we shall turn into dinars.
And you must show no mercy in doing this,” (47) So in the
morning he awoke, still pondering on this dream, and said to
tibh nuite: Today, (mother,) you must to well prepared all
day for a solemn rite. Make the house ceremonially pure by
smearing on cow-dung and so forth, and we will feed three
brahmans to the best of our ability, I for my part am going
to get a barber.” (48) So it was done, and the barber came
io trim his beard and nails. When his beard had been trimmed
in proper fashion, the figures which he had seen in the dream
Frame Story. —Story 2: Barber who hilled the Monks,— Frame Story 405
came in. (49) And as soon as the merchant’s son saw these
monks, he dealt with them as he had been commanded. And
they became piles of money. (50) And as he took in this mass
of wealth, the merchant’s son gave the barber three hundred
dinars (as a fee, and) in order to keep the secret. (51) But
the barber, having seen him [do this], went home and drew a
hasty conclusion from what he had seen, and thot: “I too will
kill three monks (with a cudgel) and turn them into three heaps
of treasure.” (52) So he took a cudgel and stood in readiness;
and presently three monks, impelled by their previous deeds,
came a-begging. (53) Thereupon the barber smote them with
the cudgel and killed them. And he got no treasure. (54) Straight-
way the king’s officers came and arrested the barber and took
him away and impaled him.
(End of Story 2)
(55) Therefore I say: ‘‘What is not rightly seen, not rightly
understood ” &e. (56) “ (So you also are just such a fool. There-
fore wise men must not perform any action until it has been
carefully considered.) ”
Here ends the Fifth Book, called Hasty Action.
[END OF THE PANCATANTRA],
Edgerfcon, Pa&cat&ntra. II,
27
ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA
Page 42, footnote 32. On tHs subject (translations from the Pahlavi into
Arabic) see now Sprengling-, American Jowmal of Semitic Lamguage^,
40 (1924), 81 ff., especially 86 ff.
Page 128, line 19 of first paragraph: for “ versons read ‘‘versions”.
Page 161, last line of paragraph (13): read e^dina^ ghaiayi$yanti.
Page 173, line 2 of paragraph (17): read “(Pi> yaydy\
Page 294, line 2 of § 196: for “your” read ^our”.
Page 337, seventh line from bottom: for “abanbon” read “abandon”.
I Central Archaeological Library,
I Acc'.'Nb.
NEW DELHI.
3715
Call No. SaSKV^aJa/Sdg.
i —
! Author— Panchat antra
Title— Panchatantra recons-
tructed.
Date of Return
Date Issue
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11